Okay, everyone.

All right.

Are we ready in the balcony?

Balcony is always ready.

Even if the rest of us aren't, we get our act together.

Okay, well, it is five o'clock on the dot, so we have a lot to cover this evening.

So we are going to get started.

Welcome everyone to the City of Alameda City Council meeting.

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Today is Tuesday, July 7th, 2026, and we're going to start with a special city council meeting in closed session.

And I would like to ask the city clerk, Laura Weisiger to please call the roll.

Council members Bowler.

Prior.

Here, Mayor.

Is the Ashkaft?

Here.

Three present, and hopefully Days Hug and Jensen will be here.

Okay, have we heard from them?

No.

Okay.

Well, we're always, we think positive.

And let's start with public comment on closed session items only.

We do have a speaker.

It's Ruth Abbey.

Welcome, Speaker Abby.

Come on up and make the microphone whatever you need it to be.

Hey, good afternoon, members of the city council.

I'm Ruth Abbey from Community Action for Sustainable Alameda.

And I just came here to the five o'clock meeting to uh reiterate uh the comments that we made in our letter regarding item 3A in the closed session, which is about Enterprise Park and the development there.

The concerns are really those that are obvious.

This is, you know, the public park, this is a private use.

Uh it's a large development, and there's concern about this area of the city being more appropriate for development that is nature-based or could accommodate sea level rise.

Uh, I've heard from parents who would like to see more uh playing fields and that sort of thing in that location.

And so um we felt as though there would be potential for other parts of Alameda Point to accommodate a large commercial enterprise like this.

And so uh those were our comments on that closed session item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, do we have further public comment on closed session items?

All right, with that, I'll close public comment on closed session items only.

And we are about to adjourn to closed session to consider the following items that I'll ask the city clerk to um announce.

Item 3A is conference of three property negotiators pursuant to government code section five four nine five six point eight.

The property is portion of Alameda Point Enterprise Park boarded by West Horned Avenue, the San Francisco Bay, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, and the NCNL boat launch.

City negotiators are the assistance manager, the recreation park director, the recreation and park assistant director, the deputy city attorney, uh the negotiating parties are the city of Alameda and Neptune Beef Search Surf Court of the County of Alameda, case number 24 CB 097206.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I'm so glad I don't have to transcribe you when you're talking.

But well done.

So we are going to take these items in the reverse order.

I'm going to start with 3B.

And so any staff who are here for 3B, please come on back to room three ninety-one now.

And then we'll call 3A when we're ready for that.

And to members of the public, we fully intend to be back before you at 7 p.m.

this same evening.

Thanks, everyone.

Let's go into closed session.

Thank you.

It's amazing.

All right, it is 7:02.

Are we ready in the balcony?

Balcony is always ready.

All right.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City Council meeting.

This is the City of Alameda City Council meeting.

Today is Tuesday, July 7th, 2026.

And the council has just returned from closed session.

And I would like to call on the City Clerk Laura Weisiger to please report out on any take action taken in closed session.

Thank you.

Regarding 3A, which was conference with Real Property Negotiators, regarding the surf park.

Staff are added information to the city council.

The council directed staff to schedule community workshop with the city council in the fall of 2026, including but not limited to limited to exploring and considering the merits of a surf project, any potential ENA process and community benefits in the vicinity of Enterprise Park.

Council further directed staff to promptly return to council to discuss a potential ENA in closed session following the community workshop.

And then regarding item 3B, which was a litigation case of Miller.

Staff provide, oh, and that one carried by unanimous voice, but sorry about that.

And then regarding 3B, which was a litigation case with Miller.

Staff provided information, council provide the direction also unanimously by bye bye.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And with that, I will adjourn the closed session.

And I will call to order the regular city council meeting, and we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'd like to ask Councilmember Tracy Jensen to please lead us in the pledge.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Please rise.

Begin.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with a liberty of justice all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Jensen.

Okay, and then we will move on to roll call, Madam Clerk.

Council members.

Jensen.

She's here.

Councilmember Jensen?

Prior.

Here.

Mayor Ezie Ashcraft.

I'm here.

Five present.

All right, thank you.

Sorry.

I see we're just moving furniture.

It's all good.

Um, Madam Clerk, are there any agenda changes?

Yes, there is.

Um, item seven, uh D D as in dog, uh, which was a charter amendment related to the auditor and treasurer, um, has been withdrawn and will be heard on uh July 21st instead.

And then also, I think 3A, which was the presentation, that one's gonna come back at a different day, too.

All right, wonderful.

And um we don't have any proclamations.

I have actually gonna suggest two agenda changes, and what would that be?

The first one, as I understand it, I've um spoken to the city clerk, and I understand the first one that I will make is um uh will require both of these will require a vote by council, but the first one is the supermajority vote.

The first I move that item 5D be polled and heard as the first regular agenda item.

And what else?

I um believe that these motions are need to be taken separately because one is a majority and one is a supermajority.

I get that.

I'm asking what other agenda changes since we're discussing agenda changes at this time.

Okay, I'll withdraw my motion for the first one and I'll explain my agenda changes.

I have two agenda changes for consideration.

One is to move item five D to be to be heard as the first regular agenda item, and the other one is to continue item 7B and 7C to the July 21st regular agenda.

Um, I will express strong opposition to moving 7C and 7D to the next um council meeting.

The reason being July 21st is the last council meeting before we go on break, and um it's already pretty crowded, and this also um city attorney can maybe explain some of the ramifications for the um for moving if we were to move 7B and 7C to the last meeting in July in terms of time to draft and things like that.

Uh sure, madam Mayor.

So that is the last meeting for the city council to place ballot measures um before the voters for this election, and so if the council is considering ballot measures on in that meeting, um we will, you know, staff will just have to work really, really hard to ensure that we capture every single thing that happens because you will not have an opportunity to see it again uh if there are significant changes.

Yeah, are there other ballot measures that will be heard for the first time at that meeting?

I believe the auditor treasurer one is the only one that we just that was just continued, right?

And there was a um a family reason for that one being um rescheduled, but otherwise I do not like to place extra burden on staff, especially at this very busy time.

Well, okay, but I will make the motions and then certainly we can determine if they are adopted.

Okay, so there's been um a motion.

What is it again?

Uh move that item 5D be pulled and heard as the first regular agenda item.

Okay, but let's go back to the two that you want continued.

Are you not are you withdrawing that?

No, I I'm making two motions.

The first motion is to move item 5D and pull item five D and hear item five D as the first regular agenda item.

And I might be willing to support that.

Um, and just help me understand the reason for your request to continue the other two.

Because the there were three initially there were three charter reform items on the agenda tonight.

All three of those have not been heard or have not been discussed in public.

I, as a council member hadn't was not aware that these were coming to the council until I saw the agenda report and I've heard from members of the public that they were not aware of any of these items before uh the agenda was published about 10 days ago.

So I uh would understand that one of the items has been moved to July 21st, and I think that's appropriate.

And I think that both of the other charter reform items should also be moved to to July 21st, since this will be that will give the public plenty of time to get the limited look at the limited agenda report and and perhaps ask questions if they have any of the of the charter subcommittee.

Um we've had a charter subcommittee that I named in open session um for this very purpose since Madam Clerk.

Do you remember when that was the first one, the initial one or the next one?

Well, the one that the vice mayor and I are.

No, I don't have that date.

But I mean earlier this year, is it an open session?

I understand.

Yeah, yeah.

So you're just not recalling okay.

I'm so sorry you weren't aware of it before this evening.

Okay, well, I I again for all the reasons previously stated, I will not be seconding or supporting.

Let's take the first item.

Um, and the reason for that request is what?

Again, um item 5D is a facility plan which outlines in 59 pages, 5960 pages, all of the facilities that are necessary to be upgraded, and that would be some of the facilities that would be included in uh a later agenda item that we will be discussing, which is a bond measure, revenue measure that would be put on the ballot for November that must be acted upon tonight.

So since the item 5D, the facility plan is on consent calendar, and there's no opportunity, as I said.

Again, I did not see it until 10 days ago, the facility plan.

And um I'm if I didn't see it, I suspect that members of the public probably haven't seen it either.

I've gotten some input from members of the public wondering how these items fit together.

And I have my own questions about how the facility plan informs the bond measure that will be an action item later.

So I would like to hear the facility plan prior to acting on the revenue measure.

Um then you do understand um that if we move the um this consent calendar item to be heard first before item 7A, we will still get the three minutes um a piece that council is as allocated to comment on consent calendar items, correct?

If it is pulled as a and put as a regular agenda item.

Oh, it's not put as a regular agenda item.

It's just the courtesy of rather than hearing it at the end of the regular session.

It's five minutes.

Is it five minutes?

Five.

Okay.

Because you have three minutes during the whole count consent discussion of everything, and then the items that gets pulled, you learn it.

Yeah, five.

Okay, thank you for that reminder.

Okay.

Okay, well, um, let's see, and we need uh what do we need to do that?

Four votes.

That's a super majority because you're amending the rules.

Okay, you know, doing a break.

Okay, I mean that one I can live with the others, no, but um uh you've made the motion.

Anybody um seconds that um I'm sorry this is just for was it 5G is in D.

Five D, sorry.

Um this is the facilities plan to pull second.

From that, okay.

All right.

Um we've had a motion by Councilmember Jensen, second by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Um that one we will do.

Okay, um, the next motion um I really um would not um encourage my colleagues to support that because staff has already slammed at this point um before we go on break.

Um, but make that motion if you wish.

I move to continue item 7B and 7C to join the other charter reform item, which was 7 uh D on the July 21st regular agenda to give the public opportunity and myself opportunity to have more information before acting on these charter reform items.

And for the sake of the public who's watching and wondering, the reason that um the subcommittee, the charter reform subcommittee, which is vice mayor prior and myself agreed to continue that particular charter amendment motion is that because one of the individuals involved has a doggie who's very sick and is going to be put down soon and just didn't have the wherewithal to appear.

And um that seemed like a pretty good humanitarian reason for anyone who's been a dog owner, and I have so but that was unique.

So anyway, just I you're probably wondering what's going on behind the scenes.

So that was the explanation.

Okay.

Um, thank you for that.

And I I'll just uh I I apologize that I did I did know that um one of the one of the individuals that would have been affected by that charter item charter amendment was um did have a a death in his family of this pub, and and that's some reason for him not to be here, of course.

But regardless, uh I still even if that had not been the case, I still don't believe that there's been sufficient time to review or get information about these substantial and significant charter reform issues.

I think it's it's coming too soon, and since the July 21st agenda is available, that there's only one potential meeting that these items could be heard on.

In fact, we could act tonight on the other two, and they could move forward with as little as little as 30 minutes of discussion, and and I think it's more important than that.

So I would like to move these to the next meeting.

And that was my motion.

Um there's a motion.

Is there a second hearing none?

The motion dies for lack of a second.

All right, we will move on.

Um, let's see.

Are we where are we, madam clerk?

Is this oral communication non-agenda item?

Yeah, okay.

All right, so um this is the time where speakers may address the council in regard to any matter that's not on the agenda over which the council has jurisdiction.

We'll take 15 minutes now at the top of the agenda.

If there are more speakers for non-agenda items, we'll take them at the very end.

But before we do, I'm going to read my um ground rules for the conduct of a city council meeting, which is to say that um this is a business meeting, it is not theater, it's not a sporting event.

We've all been watching FIFA um games recently, World Cup games lately.

But we are here to do the business of the city and some substantial business is going to be transacted tonight.

So what we ask for just the respect of everyone and for smooth meeting um uh transaction is that um we don't applaud, we don't cheer, jeer, boo, do the wave.

If you have a sign, you can certainly hold it up.

We just ask that you don't hold it up over your head unless you're in the very back row, so you don't um you don't uh interfere with anyone else's um view.

And we um also ask that you when you come up to the podium to speak, just make that microphone yours, whatever level you need so we can all hear you.

When the timer goes off, and the city clerk will let you know how much time you have.

Please stop talking and sit down and then respectfully listen for other people to also speak.

And um, in doing that, we allow everyone to um feel safe and comfortable.

I always want this public space to be somewhere where someone even coming for the first time to address the city council feels comfortable, isn't afraid that someone will boo or hiss or laugh at what they say.

So let's just treat everyone the way we would like to be treated.

And with that, um, Madam Clerk, do we have speakers under oral communication non-agenda items?

We do.

Uh Ryan Klassener.

Sorry.

Oh, welcome.

Hello, hello.

Madam Mayor, very brief.

I'm just uh hello, Council members as well.

I'm here on behalf of the Rotary Club of Alameda.

I'm the new president this year, and I just wanted to welcome you all and members of the public.

If you'd ever want to come to our membership meetings, we meet on every Tuesday at 12 o'clock to about 1 30.

Meals are provided by Pizzeria Papo, and we have a business meeting, but we also always have very engaged guests to speak about.

You might wonder what the rotary does if you don't already know.

We all you see us at community events.

We like to make Alameda a better place for our residents that live here.

We also have fundraising events that we help in some things like the Gene Sweeney Pavilion.

That was one of our larger gifts to the city.

We've also done scholarships for seniors, and we have also global grants through the world.

We did a grant recently in Ethiopia, and we're always looking at ways to think locally, acting globally as well.

And it's also a place for a lot of people to for friendship and fellowship.

So again, thank you all for having me tonight, and I can welcome you all to our club meetings.

Thank you.

And did you want to tell us what you do in your day job?

Um Mosquito Control.

So General Manager of Alameda County Mosquito.

So dump and drain your water and call us if you need help.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker.

That was our only speaker.

Okay.

With that, we will close public comment.

Um oral communications 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.

We have had one item removed, but that was done under a vote, so it will come up first on the regular agenda.

There are no other removed items, are there, madam clerk?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

And so um, and then uh council members may speak for up to three minutes on consent calendar items.

So, first of all, are there any items other than um uh 5D as in dog that we um just heard we voted on?

Are there any other items council wants to pull from the consent calendar?

Okay, then um does council have any questions on any of the items that are remaining on the consent calendar.

We have a recusal if I may.

Thank you.

Item 5K.

Um I would recuse myself from that vote because I have a financial interest in some residential um rental property in Alameda.

Oh, right, this is the final passage of an ordinance we heard before, but he can stay in the in the chambers, right?

Don't go away.

Um I have a question about one of the items.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, which item, and we'll get a staff person up to answer it.

Thank you.

It's on item five uh sorry.

Thank you.

Five, no, not five, I the five G, excuse me.

Five G um is um sure um adoption.

Okay, um, and that would be our HR director.

Come on up and introduce yourself.

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

My name is Noelle White, Human Resources Director for the City of Alameda.

Thank you.

My question is um with regard to the the if if we can um let's see it the adoption of a resolution modifying the appointee salary schedule to increase the salary range of the city manager position by seven percent and the city attorney by seven percent.

And my question is is pretty simple.

Does this increase the salaries of the city manager and the city attorney?

It does not.

So specifically, item 5G does not provide a salary increase to either position.

Rather, it just it just adjusts the salary range um to maintain an adequate spread for future contracted negotiations or uh increases.

Thank you.

And that's your only question.

All right, thank you, Ms.

White.

Okay, um, the council questions.

Um Madam Clerk, did you want to make any announcements?

Yes, please.

Um, before voting on compensation increases for certain executive staff, the Brown Act requires the council to publicly announce the recommended increases in tonight's agenda.

There are three items.

5F amends the city attorney contract and authorizes a 7.88 increase in the city attorney's annual salary effective July 12th, resulting in a salary range of 379, 124 to 382902.

5G increases both the city attorney and city manager's salaries by 7% effective July 12th, 2026, resulting in a salary range of 317 584 to 412, 499 for the city manager and 321022 to 39203 for the city attorney.

5H increases the city clerk's salary schedule by 14 point prices, 5% 8 5% plus a 1% cost of living adjustment effective July 12th, 2026, resulting in a salary of 268174.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam clerk.

And then um, did I call for public comment?

Now is it?

Okay, okay.

So do we have any public comment on the two on the consent calendar?

Okay, let's happen.

We have Anil uh Bavar.

Um in a remote remote.

Okay, speaker Babar, welcome.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Anil Bavar with the California Apartment Association.

CAA urge respectfully urges you to oppose item 5K as a reminder.

Rubs is a critical tool for maintaining for keeping maintenance and operational costs down while remaining as the only tool to encourage conservation of resources due to the ban that was implemented in on rubs in San Jose seven years ago.

We have documented increases of up to 40 percent in water consumption.

This dramatic increase in consumption has driven the city to reevaluate its ban on rubs, and the city of LA has recently postponed their adoption of a ban after this evidence was presented.

That's exactly the opposite of what California should be encouraging, which is a uh anything that increases consumption of our natural resources during a time of droughts and increasing pressure on our water supplies.

This ordinance is not ready for adoption, it contains several serious operational problems as outlined in the letter we submitted.

The petition deadlines are rigid and could harm owners and residents if an implementation issues arise.

The housing authority utility allowance cap appears arbitrary and may prevent owners from recovering documented utility costs.

Tenant petitions that can be filed at quote unquote at any time creates uncertainty years after the fact.

The ordinance also changes definitions unrelated to rubs without clearly explaining why, and it fails to address common area utilities.

Your attention should instead be focused on the relocation component of the rent control ordinance, which isn't legally sound given a recent court ruling.

The ordinance preserves Alameda's relocation payment triggered by a rent increase above the maximum increase under a recent appellate authority in CA VE Pasadena, rent increase triggered relocation requirements are legally vulnerable because they impose a financial penalty on a landlord for exercising a lawful right to set rent.

We ask that the council will reject the ban on rubs.

There are just too many operational legal and financial issues to adopt as final passage.

We support transparency utility bill in billing, but this ordinance goes far beyond transparency.

We're urging urge, we respectfully urge you to vote no on this measure and pull it off the agenda so that that vote can be recorded.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, do we have further public comment?

Okay, one more.

Jay Garfinkel.

Oh, oh now two more.

So okay, Garfinkel's next.

Welcome, Speaker Garfinkel.

Hi, good evening.

Um, I have one general concern about uh, I think it's D, no.

The ones that relate to salary, it's like DE, no, F G A G and I, I think it is.

My concern is that staff is uh telling us that we need to set up a 300 million dollar loan uh to pay for uh infrastructure.

We've also heard that the city is facing in increasing debt related to pensions and health uh uh programs.

So at a time that we are in such need, and at a time when many residents of Alameda are experiencing financial difficulties, uh, as are people in the rest of the country, it seems imprudent to make such generous salary increases.

For instance, I noticed that the city attorney has been receiving six percent raises every year in addition to uh cost of living increases.

I don't know if very many people here in Alameda are getting six percent increases every year for doing essentially uh the same work.

Uh I think that uh we just should be more prudent in how we allocate our funds.

Also, I'm not clear who sets these uh compensation packages.

Uh I don't know if the public is actually involved.

It's they appear to be asking you shall receive.

Yeah, that the and one of the big problems in the state as well as the city is that uh city employee unions uh exert a tremendous influence over various uh budgetary items, including their own uh compensation.

So I would like to see this whole compensation situation be open to for more public scrutiny.

I think this is an example of why we need to keep an auditor and uh city treasurer as elected uh positions.

Um I'm not questioning whether these uh compensation packages are appropriate.

I'm questioning the process uh especially in light of the general economic situation in Alameda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, uh Tony Grimm.

Welcome, Speaker Grimm.

Good evening.

I support the item 5k for the simple reason that I believe that renters who are approximately half of the city of Alameda should be allowed to have more control over an expense, a very high expense utilities, which are always going up, just like homeowners do.

If they're if renters cannot control what they pay for utilities, there's very little incentive for them to economize and to save water in times of drought or economize for electricity and gas and when there's a heavy burden on the grid systems.

So I would like you to see this control being given back to the renters so they can be more involved, more involved in the city's welfare and be more in charge of their own finances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, uh Laura Woodard.

Welcome, Speaker Woodard.

Good evening.

Um I work for the California Center for Movement Legal Services, and I was an active steering committee member of Alameda Renters Coalition.

I'm in my 50s, and as a 14-year Alameda renter, I'm permanently housing insecure.

I also happen to be facing a threat of eviction from my new landlords.

Um I appreciate the points that were made on June 16th by the mayor and vice mayor that housing insecurity is a very real and continuing issue in our city.

Um, this is mostly invisible to middle income residents of Alameda.

Tenants deserve stability.

Um, I have separate utility meters, so I'm not currently affected by the ratio utility billing um ban, but I support it and I ask you to finalize the change.

Um, this is about Alameda's rent ordinance, um, which makes it clear that additional charges, including utilities, are rent.

Um, you know, we have this debate a pass through.

We make we make these distinctions.

Tenants are not saying can't uh landlords can't be compensated for covering utilities, but by law, tenants need to know up front what they're paying their landlord for and how much.

I do have one frustration, which is that it seems like to pass a proposal that could prevent you know housing and security.

Um we are always expected to compromise with landlord interests as though you know it's an even playing field.

Um I noticed a real estate lobby ref gave um public comment at the first reading.

Um just like rubs, having a capital improvement plan option at all is a rent control workaround.

The one time uh rent increase um allowance for landlords seems like fair compensation um for landlords who choose not to convert to um separate meters.

So I don't think the tenants should have to pay for that conversion um for choose for landlords choosing that route on any size property, especially the largest corporate owned properties.

Being on a small property, I could I could receive what I consider an unfair CIP pass through for the full cost of other types of building improvements, though I'd support the passage of the rubs ban while also asking the city to make our rent stabilization ordinance whole by passing a full ban on capital improvement plans as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, and that was our last speaker, okay.

With that, we will close public comment on um the consent calendar and um are there any other comments from the council?

I actually have a comment, thank you, Councilmember Johnson.

I the clerk mentioned when she introduced the public hearing on compensation, that this I think it was called a public hearing or or in public session to um to discuss or or outline any compensation adjustments.

That's required by the Brown Act, is what I but when you when you introduced it, you said that there was that increase in compensation for these positions, right?

I announced and I just want to clarify that the positions are not in well your the one position in five um five F is increasing, excuse me, and one position in five H is increasing, but five G is a range, so want to be really clear.

Um who wants to go first?

I see the city attorney.

Let's start with this.

I said the salary and I announced the range.

Yes.

I I said the salary and I announced the whole range.

Okay, thank you.

And city attorney, did you, Shan?

Did you want to add anything?

I just want to reiterate the comments made by the HR director, which is uh the item uh in question that the HR director answered the question was correct, which is that that particular item only changes the range of this not change actual compensation.

Thank you, okay.

Are we good?

Okay, I am looking for understanding that council member bowler is going to recuse on 5K.

Understanding that item 5D is about to be heard.

Next, I'm looking for a motion and a second to approve the uh consent calendar with those um modifications.

So moved.

This has been moved by Vice Mayor Pryor, seconded by council member bowler.

All those in favor, please signify by stating I.

I can't remember Day Side.

Oh, the no on five K.

Okay.

But yeah, on everything else.

Okay, got that, Madam Clerk.

Of course she does.

All right.

So then we will move on to the um regular agenda, and I understand that our assistant city manager, Amy Wooldridge, is going to provide an overview of item five, Divin Dog, about um the facilities plan.

So you want to do it from there?

That's fine.

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Oh, we've got slides.

We have just two short slides.

Okay, we'll keep it brief.

Yeah.

Um, so the facilities plan, the facilities, city facilities plan, that's a report focuses on the control.

I mean it's tapping down like I could control it on my laptop.

Thank you.

So what we did is we reviewed, we worked with RRM and we were uh focused on some key specific facilities, uh, fire stations one, two, four, and five, fire admin, fire training facility, the fleet services garage, maintenance service center, recreation and parks corp yard, and animal shelter.

These were specifically selected because they require more in-depth comprehensive space planning and siting and feasibility analysis.

Basically, these specific facilities were existing very aging outdated facilities that don't meet current professional or seismic standards.

Uh plus, they have um many of them have increasing demand for services, and in the case of the animal shelter, um, significant impacts on uh residential developments nearby.

Um sorry, back to the recommendations for a minute.

Thank you.

So what you have in front of you, I'm not gonna list through all of them, but basically we have um recommendations in the plan for some of the fire station for a new station of fire for fire station five at a at a site to be um there's recommendations in there on which location at Alameda Point and a couple different few different options, uh, a couple remodels for fire stations, um, and for fire station one to expand into the existing admin area, and that admin um Chief Lubian team have already been working on uh what's come before this council to move admin into uh a leased area at Marina Village, so already trying to move it in that direction.

Um also for fleet services.

Uh we the report recommends combining several facilities into a site at Alameda Point for efficiency.

Um that would be the animal shelter, the recreation parks corporation yard, and the fleet services garage.

And then what that would do is open up space where the uh animal shelter and fleet uh garage currently are next to the maintenance services center, so that the maintenance services center can then expand into that area to provide more appropriate facilities.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh so these are the costs before you uh they total approximately 342.4 million dollars.

That's based on um 2029 construction costs.

So basically we did include cost escalation, knowing it takes time to identify funding sources, go through design, feasibility, um technical studies, all of that.

Um, and it also does include soft costs.

So these um numbers before you are realistic numbers that have been cross-checked um by professional uh cost estimators, MAC 5, and um my last thought to leave you with is that really next steps from the facility plan include identifying funding for interim and short-term solutions.

There are some of those in the plan as well, such as uh modular buildings and things like that, and then conduct technical studies on some of these specific sites that we had identified, and then identify major capital funding, such as what you'll be hearing next is the proposed city infrastructure bond measure for um major project funding for these large capital projects.

That concludes my report.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Assistant City Manager Woolridge.

Um are there any clarifying questions from the council before we see if there's any public comment on this item?

Um just really clear uh Vice Mayor Pryor.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Um it wasn't on the slide, but you had said the total is three hundred and forty-two million.

I just want to is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Any other clarifying questions, Council Member Jensen?

Um we this uh thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for pulling this.

I wanted to um focus on the areas that you some of the ones that you listed.

Can you um just explain the the well first my first question is actually about the fire administration?

Is that still an issue?

It's listed as a B or a C, I think, um, in terms of the facility, but I is that still an issue given that the fire administration has been leasing a site.

Um the the so what you're referring to is is is um RRM who conducted the analysis gave a letter grade essentially they did an in-depth study of the existing facilities, and many of the fire facilities got uh lower um fire admin got B's and Cs.

Um those were based on the those letter grades were an analysis was based on their existing uh site at uh adjacent to Fire Station One, not based on what will be their new home at Marina Village.

So in the implementation strategy and in the discussion, the fire administration is the first item fire administration building, and um that is rated as a uh as you point out as a B, I think, and it but it's no longer an issue today for for now because there is a lease site.

Once they they're not quite there, once they move into the lease site, it'll be a significantly improved facility, and we have Chief Luby here if he wants to to provide any more detailed information.

And then um so I also wanted to highlight and ask about the the status of of the other sites.

There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight um facilities listed in this report, and the one facility that gets an F grade, the one out of the eight facilities.

One facility gets an F grade, and that's the animal shelter.

But I see that the chief is.

Probably less conversant about the animal shelter back here.

But um, did you have any specific questions?

Yes, I did.

I wanted to get I wanted to learn more and have some information provided about why the animal shelter is an F and why it's not being discussed for either CIP or or potential bond revenues.

It's it seems to be in very, very poor condition according to this report, but yet there's no uh program or plan or or um information about improvements or who would like to take that.

Not me.

You know what if we don't get all the way there.

So I'm gonna hit the pause button.

I forgot something really important.

We have a new city manager today, and it's his first meeting as city manager.

He's not new to the city of Alameda, he's been our assistant city manager, but this is Jerry Bowden, our new city manager.

He's not a brand new city manager.

We took him from so we'll dispense with that rule about no applause, but I always say applaud in your heart.

But anyway, um, we're delighted to have you welcome aboard.

I'm so sorry, I was just trying to start the meeting on time.

Totally forgot that.

Um, did you say are you um punching to the assistance?

Are you gonna start with this?

I will I will maybe just contextualize this part of the conversation.

There's this is almost a two-parter tonight, and I think that council member Jensen raised a great point, which is that we have this facilities analysis that we've done, but uh the infrastructure bond and some of the conversations as the council had last year, including the four workshops, really speak to the breadth and scope of the needs uh across the community.

We are a full service city and trying to find ways to get the funding started to address some of these needs is where we are and what we'll get to later tonight.

This is really a focus on um facilities that the city uses to deliver services to the community, but there are a lot more pieces of our infrastructure, including things like uh our fleet and uh and some of the other conveyance mechanisms like stormwater and things like that that we need to be accounting for, and so being part of a full-service city, uh it is always a challenge to meet all of the needs that we we know we're facing.

Uh so what you'll see later this evening is a recommendation.

We do have um our members of our consulting team here tonight to talk about how we triage.

We have members of our staff team who are involved in that as well.

Uh and just because something's not in the second item tonight doesn't mean that it's still not going to be part of discussions about what we need to do in the community going forward.

Thank you.

And if I could just tag on to that, I know we've all read our staff reports, and so we realize that when we talk next about the proposed infrastructure bond, that there are three legs to that stool and facilities are certainly one of them, but addressing sea level rise and adaptation, climate adaptation is another, and then making sure that our streets are in in good condition, repairing potholes is another.

So we're getting a lot, we're doing more with less.

Um, and did you want to add to um add on assistant city manager?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just wanted to add that we are continuing to invest through our capital improvement program uh as well.

And so, for example, coming up for the animal shelter, which did get a very poor grade in terms of where it's sited, it it's not large enough for for the current uses.

There's a lot of reasons behind that.

Um, but we're doing it replacing the HVAC system, plumbing, floor, wall finishes.

So we are investing in in it, and we will continue in our facilities, but to really address the animal shelter requires moving it into this joint combined civic facility with fleet and animal shelter in the Rackham Park Corpyard.

So that's a very major project that really would require infrastructure bond or some other significant capital funding to move forward.

Thank you.

And I have one more question.

I appreciate the clarity about where the animal shelter and the corporate yard fit in to any potential improvements.

The interim one, interim two, phase one, phase two, phase three.

So I my question is regarding the implementation strategy for potential use of um either bond funds or CIP funds.

It looks like the first item that might be implemented is to lease office space, which we discussed and which is happening year one to year three.

Then after that is the recreation and parks yard.

Can you just tell me is the interim modular restrooms, lockers, and security lights?

Is that being already being put in place?

Okay, so that's the interim year that would be year one to year three, 2027, 28, 29.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So then the interim number two, which would start in 2029, would be fire station one.

So it's is it correct to say that fire station one to expand into existing administration area because that's to address the administration issues, would start in interim two, year three to year five.

Yeah, this this strategy is something that that is will be an iterative process, and and so we will be as we're identifying funds, we'll be implementing this.

Um we may likely it'll be challenging to stay on the exact timeline of it.

Um but the the so both with modular recreation and park corp yard, that's something we want to start looking at and how we can fund that um similar with fire station one and identifying the funds to be able to expand into the now soon to be vacated administration area to provide some of the additionally required um uh facilities that are needed at fire station one, and similar to fire station five, which needs remodeling, that was intended to be somewhat around the similar time because that seemed more uh in reach from a financial perspective than some of the larger projects.

Sure, and this and I see on here it's about 14 million starting in um year three, which would be 2029.

So according to this plan, it's 14.9 million starting and this according to the implementation plan, it would be 14.9 million from CIP starting in 2029.

That's what the implementation strategy says.

City Manager Bowden, you look like your formula thought you've got to.

I do.

Uh yeah, I think this is there's the plan, and then there's building it into our capital improvement plan, and this plan is relatively new.

It's hitting, you know, it's hitting a lot of people's desks and and uh getting more attention as the the weeks go on here.

So uh to assistant city manager Woolridge's point earlier, it's it's something that we're gonna have to start to program into our CIP.

Uh we do have now identified needs, which helps us get after funding uh either through grants or other opportunities.

Uh our CIP dollars are not gonna go far enough to keep us on pace uh with this plan currently, and it's part of why we're talking about the infrastructure bond later this evening.

Thank you.

Well, and to that point, I'll just add in it's in the staff report about the proposed infrastructure bond that one of the things that that funding would help us do is to apply for grants because oftentimes there's a matching component.

I mean, that's how we were able to build the library that many years ago, we were able to put in the matching uh the matching part and look where it led.

Thank you.

And I know um Chief Luby is here this evening, and can because we're talking about the facilities plan, and you had asked what is going to happen in fire station one, he there there is background information and additional information about that, and it it really has to do with modernizing our fire stations uh in a way that makes them uh you know safer for our employees, our firefighters, and also more efficient.

And so I don't know if Chief Luby, if you'd like to add or if you have more that you'd like to add tonight about this concurrent condition of fire stations across the community.

If you want to start with the one that's 150 years old or wherever, welcome, Chief Luby.

You want to go ahead and introduce yourself.

Thank you, Nick Luby.

Fire Chief, good after or good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Um can I answer?

Can I speak to uh the fire admin real quick first?

I sure can.

Uh so fire the fire admin, the lease for to move fire admin, there was an opportunity as you know we presented the council.

There was an opportunity at uh significantly below market value to make that move, and we took the opportunity as a uh to get the lease for five years at a very low rate for for that um with the thought that that has to be vacated uh to what um the city manager referred to and for station one.

Station one is small, small in size, uh does not meet uh modern day standards for decontamination for the workforce, decontamination corridors, storage issues, confine um constricted space issues for living conditions, and the thought of the RRM report was since there is an existing attached building that's fire admin that uh is rated B.

So structurally, the bones of the building are okay and good.

That that would be the least expensive and most uh easy um addition to facilitate on the current footprint.

So I just want to give a little background on that leasing long-term, that's a decision that's council and city manager and future, maybe future fire chiefs will have to make to stay in the lease model when we get the fair market value, which I assume we won't stay at this uh current uh introductory rate.

Um that's an assumption.

Uh so there'll have to be a decision made.

Is it better to build uh if there is a building of station five or building of a new train center to add a new fire admin building for a long-term uh cost-benefit analysis needs to be done?

Leasing versus actually building the building and moving into it.

Uh the um the city manager Bowden did allude to uh we do have station two, which is 105 years old now.

Uh we just uh uh went through a situation with uh mold in the building.

Uh we did investigation.

Luckily, uh the report came back favorable for our employees, but it's an old building that needs to be well either replaced or remodeled.

We decided remodeling because again, the cost of replacing it and also trying to build a station five was just becomes cost prohibitive with modern you know current construction costs.

All station one, station two, station four all have need seismic updates uh to meet modern uh essential building standards to make sure that they stay standing and operational and functional uh when the next earthquake happens.

And you know, I I think I transposed numbers, it wasn't that the station was 150 years old, but Alan Meader Fire Department is 150 years old this August.

In fact, um Chief Luby was the grand marshal of our fourth of July parade, he and the members of AFD.

Um, but 105 is still pretty ripe old age.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um further questions, Councilman Jensen or anyone else.

Chief, with regard to the um the station uh station two, I see on the facility master plan that that station two remodel would take place in 2033.

So do you is that I hope that you've been um informed and supportive of this plan.

I think if if there is these major problems, I I would have some concern that waiting for um seven years might be uh might be uh not appropriate because if the if the the problems at the site are are as you say, 100% correct, Council Member Jensen.

Um I mean if we could if we had authority and approval and funding, I would push strongly to have it done today.

I think the schedule that was built into the RRM report uh was the best they could do with the information they had.

Um, obviously, knowing that there is funding constraints to be able to facilitate it.

The challenge also with station two, part of the remodel is presented with RRM, is the current one of the current existing apparatus, truck two, there, we'll have to move the station five so that station two will go down to only two apparatus because currently we have an ambulance that has to pull out of the back of the facility, which is not industry best practice for response times.

Uh and also it's just a very small building to be housing three apparatus.

So if you follow the plan, station station five, either interim or permanent needs to be built so we can relocate station two so then we can remodel remodel or sorry, relocate truck two, so then we can do the remodel for station two.

Well then I'll just close and point out that the remodel or any any other construction in interim two, uh even beginning with station five would not be happening according to this report until at the earliest 2029.

So uh just keep that in mind, I guess, as you look at all your facilities and the health of of all of the officers.

That none that according to this report, which is why I pulled it, none of these implementation strategies include any action or any improvements to any fire stations before 2029 and to other sites that are at health and safety risks according to the report until 2031 to 2033.

So that's of concern, I guess, to um to me.

And this does include, by the way, bond revenue that is laid out clearly how when and how the bond revenue would be used for these facilities.

Yeah, it's um ultimately comes down to the funding to be able to facilitate the the grand scale.

I will say that uh public works does a very good job of maintaining and addressing issues as they do come up with fixes as best they can uh using CIP and other operational funding um case by case basis.

Thank you.

Any further questions for the fire chief?

Okay, um Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?

We do we have one remote all right, Jay Garfinkel.

Welcome, Speaker Garfinkel.

He's unmuted.

Speaker Garfinkel, are you unmuted?

Hello, hello.

And his hands still up.

No, I do we have any other remote speakers?

No, we don't have any other speakers at all.

Okay, speaker Garfield, we can't hear you.

Oh wait, sorry.

I was trying to get his attention by moving him again, but he's maybe okay.

He's re raised his hand.

Let's try again.

Okay.

There.

I think hi.

Sorry.

Um I have a question about the accumulation of funds.

Uh the citizen city manager said that uh they're looking for like 21 million dollars.

I'm not really clear on this, but we're looking at bonds of 300 million.

Um, would those bonds all be issued at the same time, or will they be issued uh periodically over the coming years?

Um presenting the 21 million dollars now, well, it once seems uh unnecessary, these projects will be uh carried out over the years.

Uh I'm not clear why none of these were done previously.

Uh and why say the improvements in the fire stations can't be less uh drastic than what's proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you, and just for anyone who's listening, this is public comment, not QA.

But um, do we have further public comment?

That was it.

Okay, with that, I will close public comment on item um five Diaz and dog, and this was um a recommendation to accept the Almeida City Facilities Plan, including interim and long-term plans and strategies to address infrastructure needs for city facilities and public safety buildings.

Do I have a motion and a second to approve?

Okay, Councilmember Day Sugg.

Sorry, did I miss you?

Question um question for staff.

So we are contemplating tonight a 300 million dollar bond.

And the facilities plan before us tonight includes an implementation plan, which I believe carries the weight of it basically policy if adopted.

So when I look at the $300 million that are being contemplated in total, and I look at that relative to the implementation plan on page 56, it seems to me that when I count all of the elements, particularly associated with our 150-year-old fire department, when I count all of the elements, the fire admin building at 20.2 million dollars to be funded through bond, um, fire station five at 54.6 to be funded through bond, fire station two, eleven point five funded by bond, and um fire training center 61.6 million dollars.

Um the implementation plan putting that uh also as funded through bond.

It seems to me that that adds up to a commitment of basically 15 158 million dollars of the total of the $300 million dollars towards the fire station uh fire um fire outfit.

Um, and again, thank we thank them for 150 years of um saving um residents of the city of Alameda.

Is that correct?

Um, assistant who wants to go first.

I'll always defer to the city manager, but assistant city manager will has been probably working on this longer, so do you want to start?

Absolutely, thank you, Mayor.

Um, yeah, I would start with that.

This plan is not policy, this plan is really a framework the council is providing, and and any kind of construction projects, both funding and the construction itself and timelines and schedules invariably adjust, and so it's really more providing a framework so that council understands the scope of the need, um and we lay out a plan just like you heard from Chief Louby.

It we tried to be thoughtful about um being as cost effective as possible, and so if we you know can can move admin fire admin so we can clear space there, and and you know what he was talking about a fire station two and building fire station five first.

So this really gave us an opportunity to look at these major facilities.

How does that whole puzzle fit together?

How can we sequence them?

But it doesn't commit us to a timeline or commit us to specific order of the projects or anything like that.

That will come before council uh on a project by project basis and as part of the the annual budget.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Mayor, if I might just add you.

I think the this is tough because we we're we're wanting to have a bond discussion, but we're in the facilities plan.

The facilities plan is the framework that we set out to help to add a little more specificity to the needs for city facilities.

Uh the bond itself and the kinds of projects, um, there's a there's a resolution with an attachment that creates the categories that we're focused on for that effort.

So uh while there are fire facilities included, as I mentioned earlier, we're responsible for a whole wide range of things uh as the city of Alameda and uh things like adaptation projects as well as uh just just road funding and basic accessibility requirements.

There's just been a lot of um constraints put on our our revenue sources and our funding sources, and also our needs continue to go up.

So it's tough because we want to, I think everybody's ready to get into the bond conversation, but this is important context relative to our facilities.

Thank you for that.

Um council member Day Sug, is that your hand up?

Yeah, I just want to make a comment.

Council Member Dasug.

Um the comment I'd like to make is um, in my view, this is the exact kind of uh clear identification of how much money is.

So I I actually appreciate this item because of project.

I certainly have my views about the next item, but you know, we can get to that.

But I appreciate how you know it's very specific.

It doesn't just say, oh, the fire department is going to get 158 million dollars.

Instead, this clearly delineates what are the different types of specific projects that should it pass.

Bond fund proceeds could go towards.

And I mentioned that because for the reasons that I'll talk about later.

Okay.

Um you want to make a comment.

Come on, Chief Luby.

No, it's fine.

It's a little a little uh framing uh for council member Days.

From a fire department perspective, the the costs you are seeing there are we all realize are big numbers, and when we did the workshop uh when we presented this plan, um, I took away the very clear message.

We're you're not getting everything.

We can't get everything.

We can't afford everything.

There's plenty of things to do, you know, that we have to do throughout the city.

So I just wanted to share the the pricing you see in there when we work through RRM was everything, the perfect world, shall we say?

And for I'll give you one quick example, station five.

We have a spare apparatus that need to be stored.

We said we wanted five bays, five apparatus bays, two deep, so we could put all our apparatus in there.

Subsequently, Director Smith and I went to a conference and we learned how to save money.

So one is only the frontline equipment needs to be in a building that's a central building standard.

So if we get to a point where we can start doing design work, I'm still pretty confident in some of these projects.

We can try to bring the funding, the pricing down on them, uh, with some creative uh measures and some um value engineering.

That's the word I learned, the value engineering.

So I just wanted to make sure that the prices we we're we're committed to trying to get things through citywide, and we know we have to do our part to try to make sure that the costs uh the fire related facilities do not are shared citywide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there are no further council comments, I am looking for a motion to um uh accept this Alameda facil Alameda City Facilities plan, etc.

etc.

Motion second, please.

Second motion.

It's gonna be one of those nights.

Councilmember Bowler uh moves the item and Vice Mayor Pryor seconds it all those in favor please signify by stating aye.

Aye, aye.

All right, that passes unanimously.

Next up is item seven um a and I do believe this is a really large meaty consequential item.

And um the presenters have asked for 20 minutes for the presentation.

Is that enough presenters?

20 minutes okay.

So what I need before we start is um a um quickly a motion and a second and four affirmative votes to make this a 20-minute presentation instead of a 10-minute presentation.

So moved.

Vice Mayor prior moves and council member bowler seconds.

All the vis blah, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Hi, okay.

It carries good evening.

Welcome and want to introduce yourself.

Good evening, madam mayor, city council members.

My name is Danielle Miller.

I'm sustainability and resilience manager for the city of Alameda.

And I'm really pleased to be here tonight to present to you a plan for addressing Alameda's many infrastructure needs.

Um, we have.

Sorry, I always forget about the quicker.

Um Alameda has over 800 million dollars in infrastructure needs that grow up more expensive every year that they go and addressed everything from aging facilities that we just heard about heard about to shoreline protection, potholes, street paving.

Um, and Alameda is responsible for a wide range of important community infrastructure and services.

Um our infrastructure is aging, as we just heard, and increasingly vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters.

We're committed to the long-term financial stability of our city, but without a dedicated funding source, the city will be forced to pull from the general fund, which will take away funding for everyday services like parks, libraries, and emergency response.

The purpose of this agenda item is to consider placing a $300 million infrastructure bond on the November ballot to allow Alameda voters to decide whether to fund our infrastructure needs.

If approved by voters, uh property owners would pay approximately $49 per year for every $100,000 of assessed value.

That's not the home's current market value.

All bonds all funds from the bond measure would stay local for Alameda and an independent citizens' oversight committee and mandatory annual audits would ensure all funds are spent as promised.

We've conducted extensive community outreach over the past few months and heard from many residents about our unmet infrastructure needs and our priorities for funding.

In fall of 2025, uh city staff conducted four city council workshops on our infrastructure and facility needs.

You saw the outcome of the facilities plan here tonight.

We produced a number of informational materials.

We sent out two mailers to all registered voters in Alameda.

One of those mailers, the first mailer had a survey that could be returned by mail.

That survey was also available online.

And we conducted extensive community outreach to gain additional responses to that survey.

We sent out emails, social media posts, newsletters, and we also gave 16 presentations to community organizations, boards, and commissions to educate the public and seek feedback.

Overall, we received $1,700 total responses from community members.

In addition, we also conducted statistically valid polling of likely voters.

And so I'd like now like to turn it over to our consultants, Jeremy Hauser with Team Civx, and then Curtis Bello with FM3 to talk through the results of the polling and share more about our process to date.

Thank you, Ms.

Mueller, and welcome Mr.

Hauser.

Thank you, Danielle.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the city council for having me.

My name is Jeremy Houser.

I'm a partner with Team Civics.

We're a political consulting firm that specializes in helping cities and other public agencies prepare revenue measures for the ballot.

I've had the pleasure of working on many successful measures here in Alameda, both for the city and for the school district in recent years.

And before we get to the polling results and Kurt Baylow from FM3, I just wanted to take a minute or two of your time to walk us through the overall process and our recommended benchmarks and milestones in successfully planning for a revenue measure.

I'm going to start at the last step in blue, which is the last step that the city can publicly fund.

It's building a successful measure and placing it on the ballot.

Now our deadline to qualify for the ballot this November is August 7th, which is why we're here in front of you tonight for a first reading and then a final adoption on the 21st of a potential 300 million dollar infrastructure bond to fund your highest priority needs here in the city.

But this work has been happening for uh many months now.

Um we always recommend starting with testing the feasibility of a measure with good scientific voter research.

You're gonna hear about that in a few minutes from Kurt Valo, so that we can understand not just is a ballot measure feasible, but what types of funding priorities are most important to your community members and your voters, when's the right time to go to the ballot, and at what dollar amount.

We also recommend a thorough vetting process.

You heard about that from Danielle.

Cities cannot advocate for the passage of a measure, but they can provide impartial information about the needs facing the city and how a bond measure might address those needs.

Um, as you saw from Danielle, we've undertaken that process over the last six to nine months to really help voters understand what's at stake and also hear from them about their priorities.

And then finally, we take all the findings of that testing and that vetting phase and build a measure that we think is aligned with your priorities and really your voters' priorities to make sure that if you're putting something on the ballot, it's something that your voters want to see uh invested in.

And then and only then do we recommend the fourth and final step, which is that independent campaign needed to get a measure over the finish line, as I mentioned.

Uh the city cannot be involved in that.

An independent group must be formed in order to get that measure over the finish line, and do the traditional grassroots organizing, door knocking, and fundraising that we've seen happen successfully here in Alameda in the past.

So, with that, I will kick it over to Kurt to walk through the results uh of your voter opinion research.

Thank you.

And welcome.

Alright.

Thank you, Jeremy and Mayor and members of the council.

Kurt Baylow here, a partner with FM3 Research.

Happy to be back here in front of the city presenting survey results once again.

So quick note about the methodology.

It's very similar to what we've done in the past for the city and we do for other jurisdictions a dual mode survey, online and phone interviews, roughly even mix of those to mitigate any mode biases.

Did a little over 400 interviews.

It was with voters who are likely to vote this November based upon their prior voting histories.

We offered the survey on the phone in English, Spanish, and Chinese.

We also have lots of tracking data for some of the questions.

Two things I'll just point out here, due to rounding things, sometimes might be one or two points off here or there.

I have to remind my school age children that sometimes one and one can actually equal three if it's 1.4 plus 1.4.

I get those things, questions at home all the time with my kids.

And uh the main things here is that the timing of the survey, we just did this in the middle of June.

So it's pretty recent data, and probably the most important thing here is the margin of sampling error.

Um, so for questions asked with the full sample, there's a 5% margin on sampling error.

And there were some places where we did some what we call split sampling where half of the survey respondents got different versions of a question, and those will have a 7% margin of sampling error.

So with that, before we get to the results of the measure, and I know everyone wants to see those, but it's also it's helpful for us to get a little sense of where voters' heads are, what are they worried about, concerned about, are they optimistic or pessimistic because you want to kind of meet them where they are and see where, and obviously this year alone, there's been lots of changes in voter sentiment.

This is uh the loudest uh slide we have here because we have data going back to 2008, and it's a version of the old Gallup, right direction wrong track question.

When we first started this for the city, we asked they gave an option to say mixed, so it's a little usually there's three points to the scale, but here we got four.

The main thing here is that pre-pandemic, voters over you know, pretty solid majority were like the city's headed in the right direction.

Things changed around the pandemic everywhere.

You're not the only place that had this sort of dip.

Um, I'm looking at this focusing on that blue bar.

You see the orange bar has sort of been hovering in the same range, the wrong track number.

That blue bar is starting to tick up.

We've got another data point from a survey last year and a data point from the survey this year where you're starting to see more optimism about the direction of the city.

Um, impressions of city government here.

Um we asked this blue bars or shades of approval, orange disapproval, and you'll see that we asked about city government overall, the city's management, and yourselves the elected officials here, and you'll see that majorities of our survey respondents uh offered approval of any all three of those different levels to various degrees here.

So another positive data point.

That doesn't mean there aren't things that are worrisome.

Um, and so looking at this, this is a question that we've asked uh similarly in the past versions of this.

But what are the things that you consider to be most pressing problems in the city?

Um, these in random order, and many of these things are not things you have control over as a city or you have bodest control over, but that doesn't mean that they won't weigh upon voters' minds if they're being asked to consider a measure.

So you kind of want to know what are they worried about, and we're right there'd be some overlap there with a potential ballot measure.

Looking at the darker orange bars, extremely very serious problem.

We sorted those.

No surprise here or anywhere in the state right now.

Cost of living, whether we talked about it broadly or about housing are the top concerns for voters here in the city.

Um, you know, two-thirds roughly or more feel like those are extremely very serious problems.

Right below that dash line, we have a variety of other items, and there's two different degrees of intensity here, but climate change, sea level rise, federal budget cuts.

Um, we've seen that actually an issue across the state being a little concerned.

Roughly half of voters feel strongly about those.

Um, the amount, you know, looking at other items here related at the bottom, I won't go through all of these, but the amount people pay in city taxes is pretty pertinent, two-way potential, city tax measure here.

Um, and about a third, I think that's an extremely very serious problem.

Not a big number, not as long, same level of concern about other things, but file that away for a two-thirds measure.

That's a helpful data point to have.

This is one of the more important questions, and I think maybe one of the more potentially encouraging ones here is this proxy need for funding.

So that talicized language is the language that was either read on the phone, or the voters read online themselves.

Do you think there's an appreciable need for funding here?

In this case, we talked about to maintain and approved public infrastructure in the city.

And we've seen a pretty tight correlation historically with percentage who feel like there's a great need or some need of funding for a measure.

And you'll see that that dipped a little bit last year.

So we went from 64 to 58%, but it popped up to 66%.

So you've got only about a little less than a quarter who are more dismissive of the need for infrastructure funding here in the city, and basically right at two-thirds who feel like there is an appreciable need for funding.

Maybe not quite the same intensity as 2024, but that suggests there's been a little bit of a change in opinions over the course of the last couple of years.

So I'll get to the hypothetical bond measure here.

So this is the 75 words crafted with legal finance staff, consulting many different, you know, people put their heads, thinking caps on heads together, to come up with hypothetical ballot language here for this three million dollar bond measure.

Many of these items are required.

Some of them are a little extraneous, like talking about how much a bond generates annually is legally required, although not pertinent to how bonds are actually issued over time.

But we will go through the different ways the funds could be spent, preparing for emergencies, keeping straight safe, maintaining response to fire and a few other items.

And then we ask respondents, either on the phone or they're online, taking the survey online.

How might you vote on this measure?

And if they say yes or no, we push them a little bit.

Let's get a little sense of the intensity of that support.

They definitely are probably yes.

And then for someone who's on the fence initially, do you have a lean one way or another?

Because you know, you catch people months in advance of something they haven't considered, or maybe the first reaction is I don't know about this, but they might have a proclivity to vote yes or no.

And that gives us three flavors of yes and three flavors of no.

And we can look at the intensity of that support and also the total.

And you'll see here that we're at 62% yes initially at the gate, a 28% no.

Obviously, it's a two-thirds measure, but we'll get to that in a second here.

Only one in ten are really undecided truly asked twice.

Pretty much nine out of ten have a leaning as of right now.

Um we asked the language was a little bit different because we learned something from the language, and you've had a Danielle noted, all this community outreach since the last time we conducted the survey to inform the ballot language here.

So it's not we're not it's not strictly an apples to apples, but you'll see here that the aggregate level of support for the measure is up two points.

You know, I'm putting my pollster hat on, that's margin of error difference.

Um, but I'll note also that the no's went down five points, that's right around the border of the margin of error, and the definitely yes went up from 26 to 34.

So that's an eight-point increase in the intensity.

So a little nudge closer to that two-thirds threshold from last year, and more but certainly more intensity.

Um, and so what might voters spend.

I know there's been a lot of conversation about this exhaustive list.

What is it, 800, 900 million dollars of of infrastructure needs for the city?

This is a you know, we looked through an expansive list of those different spending priorities in the 2000 uh 2025 survey, narrowed it down to ones that resonated most strongly with voters, and asked them again in this survey here.

So just a couple slides here.

We presented these in random order.

Hey, how important is this?

Um, funds could from a bond measure could be spent in this manner.

This helps us better align voter priorities with potential way a bond measure could be crafted.

Um, and you see some of these are more big picture stuff, just maintaining the quality of life.

You see the right direction, wrong track.

People are starting, you know, like living here already, and increasingly so.

But you see a lot of stuff around flooding, things of that nature, natural disasters, flooding the tubes, flooding on the shorelines, um, preventing pollution.

You'll also see a few things maybe more specifically about emergency response and fire in these sort of these categories and even real basic stuff like fixing potholes.

All these items on this slide were seen as at least extremely very important by two-thirds or more.

And that's obviously the magic threshold we're looking at, two-thirds.

Second slide here in this series, we went to step two of a mere.

These are all things that are still seen as at least somewhat important by large majorities, but the intensity starts to get a little small.

Those darker blue bars get a little smaller.

I'm gonna go back one slide.

All right, we're in a mid-30s up to 40, and now we're in a okay, kind of the mid-20s range.

Um, some of these are more preventing flooded on city streets was a little bit different from flooding the tubes, for example.

Um, some of the financial elements here, investing now before cost increase, getting you know, being able to uh leverage matching funds, not unimportant, they just weren't as you know intensely important as some of the other items, and that gives us some guidance as to what voters are putting on top of their list.

Um, so in the course of the survey, we went through some rationales in addition to those things, how the money could be spent, rationale for how uh why supporting a measure might be good or why opposing it might be good.

Basically, we're trying our best to simulate what might happen if you were to vote to put something on the ballot.

There's gonna be a community dialogue.

Um, would support go up?

Would support go down?

It's not mirroring in a completely real scenario, but it gives us a sense of the fluidity of support here.

And here you'll see that after arguments in favor of a measure of support does go up to just two thirds at 66%.

When we came back in and said, you know, it's gonna cost too much, uh cost of living is too high, all those sort of negative things.

Support basically came back to where it started.

So it kind of go, whoop, whoop, but got up to just that two-thirds level.

And the other thing we're very close to here is 40% definitely yes, is what we you know, sort of shooting for for a two-thirds measure, and I got up to 37, so just under that.

But you'll see these are like little incremental improvements from 2025 on this slide.

That was my teasing this in that 2025 measure.

We started off at 60%, went through reasons.

Here's how the money might be spent.

Here's reasons you might want to vote yes, and support went down two points.

And then we came in and said, This is a terrible idea, it's gonna cost too much, and support went down all the way to 51.

This time the dynamics a little bit different.

We went up to 66 after presenting how the money would be spent.

Now, that's there's probably a tighter alignment with the spending priorities in this survey versus that first survey when we're casting a wider net.

Um, and you'll see that so that high point and the end points of the surveys are higher than they were in that 2025 survey, even though the starting points are pretty similar.

So, quick conclusion on my side here is you know, feels like there's a little more optimism than there has been in the last couple of years, and some of the you know, looking forward in the city, the right direction numbers are ticking up after sort of you know dropping down and pandemic.

Um, I'm not gonna sugarcoat it.

It is a challenging path to passing a measure at two-thirds anywhere in the state.

And I'm giving lots of survey results to many other communities that are much more mired in the low to mid-50s that I'm seeing here.

So, this is actually pretty good for a two-thirds measure here.

Um, that being said, there's a bit of little improvement from the the 2025 survey.

The need went up a little smidge too, particularly in the intensity side there.

Um, so some little modest improvements, and the high water mark is higher.

So, if this is a scenario where there's been some engagement, and we heard all about this in Danielle's presentation, and maybe some of the opinions have changed a little bit.

Maybe the community's becoming more amenable to a measure.

This could be an incremental step in in that sort of positive transition there.

But that doesn't mean it's not going to be challenging, and obviously, you want to really want to make sure that this aligns with voter priorities about public safety issues, how to, how they public safety during national disasters, and things of that nature.

So, feels like an incremental step in the right direction, and we have a good sense of what voters were prioritized for a bond.

Okay, I think that's the end of my section.

Thanks, Kurt.

I'll be quick, Danielle, so you can get your last slide into.

I just wanted to share a few conclusions from my end as well.

Having been involved in this process from the outset.

Um, I'll be candid when I saw these numbers, I was surprised.

I've been, like Kurt mentioned, I've been seeing a lot of polling come back where cities and other Republican agencies have dropped in support because of the state of the economy and cost of living.

We didn't, we actually increased.

Um it certainly would be a tough threshold the past.

Two-thirds always is on a good day, but we do see a path forward for this measure, even if it is a small path.

We see it, um, especially with the context of knowing the types of independent campaigns that have been run here in the city in the past.

Um so it's our recommendation that you would move forward with a really targeted and focused measure that really is only focused on the highest priority needs, which is what we've included in your city council packet tonight.

Um, and we know that you know the list of needs is much longer than three to the million dollars, but we think it's a good step in the right direction.

So Danielle, I left you 40 seconds.

And if that's not enough, we'll vote to it.

Um I'll just conclude, but this is staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution and introduce an order, an ordinance to place the 300 million dollar um infrastructure bond on the ballot for voters to decide to fund our infrastructure needs.

That concludes our presentation.

We're here to answer your questions, additional city staff as well as the presenters here tonight.

So thank you so much for your time.

Thank you all.

Good job, and you had 17 seconds left.

Any last words?

Thank you, very nice job.

Um, are there any clarifying questions from council before we go to our public comments?

Clarifying questions.

I have a question.

Councilmember Desoc.

Yes, on page PDF 6 of 30, um survey methodology.

Um there was a total interviews of 420, and that broke down into telephone interviews and online interviews.

Subsequently, on page 13 of 30, um, there is the bar chart showing um the blue bar charts, dark blue, um, royal blue, light blue.

The blue bar charts um amount to 62 percent total yes.

Is there any significant um uh difference between those who had answered um via telephone versus um those who had answered via online um interviews?

If it yes, if there is or not.

Yeah, there were the mic on here.

Um yeah, the difference was was very minor in those modes, and I also I will caution looking at the distinction between modes because the demographics of those who respond in those two modes are not identical.

So we don't wait the same number of men, women, Democrats, voters who are 50 under 50 for each mode, because don't talk over the speaker, let him finish and then you speak.

Please continue.

So there, but there was not much of a distinction between the two there.

We had other distinctions by other stuff like uh partisan affiliation, that was where we saw bigger differences.

So, yeah, so in terms of like, for example, let's take the 34% definitely yes on PDF 13 of 30.

I just kind of want to know.

So if you were what was the number for um telephone versus what was the number on the definitely yes number for those modes, I do not have at my fingertips, but I could I could get that up.

I mean that's getting a little more granular, so all right.

Thank you.

No, that's okay.

Yeah, I can look I can look that up and get it back to staff to get to you though.

Great, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

That was it.

Clarifying questions.

Council Council Member Bowler.

Um, thank you.

Is it possible to put up uh exhibit A to the resolution on the screen and for a second?

Yeah, but before you do that, I'll move to something different.

Um I just wanted to ask a little bit about the proposal in terms of the oversight function.

I think there's a citizens group how that would be formed and what the oversight um how that how that relates to other communities and their their work in this area and and how the consultants see that.

And what I'll ask is for both our consultant Jeremy Hauser to answer, but also City Clerk Laura Weisiger, who I believe did some research about citizen oversight or how oversight of bond measures has worked in the city before in the past.

In the past, yeah.

Um, why don't we start with you, Mr.

Hauser?

Yep, I will be brief and I really would like to hear from the city clerk.

Um, if the measure to be to were to be approved, the city council would um undertake a process to appoint the members of that uh oversight committee.

I believe it's up to the discretion of the city council for the structure of that oversight committee, and I would really defer to the city clerk for past uh best practices here in the city.

Um I'll say not every city adopts an oversight committee for their measures.

This was an extra step that we think is a good idea based on um, you know, knowing the city well and what we've seen in research.

We you know, your voters trust city government, but they also want to make sure that they have a say in the use of funds and want to overlook it, and so it's our recommendation that we include it, which is why it was included in the in the measure.

And I'll defer to city court for any other specifics.

Madam Clerk.

So um I did a little research today very quickly and looked at kind of all of the past um uh not only just bond measures but also the revenue measures and uh this we've never had it this type of oversight committee before.

Um, the couple of things that were included in previous ones, I'm sorry, I'm trying to open it up very quickly, and I'm not moving as fast as I wanted to.

I was trying to get the resolution in first.

Um, okay, my computer just froze.

Ah, welcome in my world.

There we go.

Do you want to what are you trying to look up?

Oh, do you want your the email you sent me?

Yeah, that I've got it, it was just surprised.

Now my computer is unfreshen, so I can keep looking for it.

So there was a thing we do here in the city.

Yeah, we love it.

It's it's so fun.

Um, so there was I started, I went all the way back to 2000.

And um basically, um, that in 2000 was the first one was the library bond.

And um, now my email's not even coming up.

It yeah, okay.

Why is it not going up?

Let me see.

You have it.

Maybe I should look at my phone since my computer's freezing.

Thank you.

Ah, that's wonderful.

Okay.

It's perfect.

I'll give it right back to you.

Okay, so that was the library bond one, and there was nothing included in that one about oversight.

Then in 2008, there was the transfer tax increase, also didn't include oversight.

Um, 2012 was a sales tax measure that was tied to some bonding that didn't pass, and that mentioned annual audits by the city's independent auditors.

So, you know, the firm that the city hires.

2016 AMP transfer, uh, that is you know in the charter now.

Um, that mentioned a tax administrator may conduct an audit.

The 2018 sales tax resolution that then passed and wasn't tied to bonding, uh, mentioned an annual audit by the city's independent auditor.

And the 2022 TOT measure uh mention mentions uh annual independent audits, and that was the and but to be clear, the independent auditor is like the firm May's in a city.

Yes, it's the city who the city contracts with.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And my computer first.

And you can do one.

That'll freeze.

Okay, back to you, Councilman.

Thank you.

And before I ask about exhibit A, I'll ask um a different question, I guess.

Um, this is a this has to do with the way the um bond is structured through the community contributions.

So it's my understanding it's 49 dollars per 100,000 of assessed value of any given property.

And I just I was just hoping to get some sense of how that was um how that how that decision was arrived at in terms of being the structure for this particular um financing mechanism and also whether or not any consideration was given to something that's more of a flat tax-based structure because of course um because of Prop 13 there's gonna be some discrepancies, although you can look at this t different ways.

Um I hope my question is not too general.

So before our initial polling, we looked at a few different findings financing scenarios, and we worked with uh city's finance department as well as outside financial experts.

I wish I was one, I'm not.

Um, but we came to the recommendation that we look at a bond specifically, a because of the need, but also B because of the revenue that you could generate from it.

Uh a similar parcel tax would actually cost uh taxpayers more on average.

Um, and so we recommended we move forward with a looking at an infrastructure bond.

We actually, in the initial polling, looked at two different bonding amounts.

We looked at 200 million dollars and 300 million dollars, and we asked voters if there was a difference.

We saw that there statistically was not a difference, and so based on you know, a need that's close to a billion dollars in the city, we recommended moving forward and looking solely at that 300 million dollar rate.

Um, your financial advisors did the back of the envelope math and did it in detail and found that a tax rate of 49 dollars per 100,000 was needed to pay back that 300 million dollar overall bonding capacity again over the life of the bond.

Thank you.

And it seems like that's a distinct advantage that the taxpayer is gonna spend less over time by through this funding mechanism.

Also, are you in that answer basically eliminating the notion that you could make this more progressive as a tax as opposed to less, as opposed to more um regressive, because you're you're you switch to parcel tax, right?

There's no is there no way to do such a thing with a infrastructure bond.

The short answer is no, right?

Um, with an infrastructure bond, we are limited for what an ad valorium tax can and cannot be, right?

It must be based on the assessed valuation of your property.

Um I would argue that while not perfect, there is some progressivity to it in the sense that if you've owned your home for a longer amount of time, it's based on your original purchase price, you're looking at a lower tax bill than someone who just more recently bought a home here uh at a much higher market value.

Um we did look just um in full transparency, we did look at a square footage based parcel tax.

We've seen that be successful for the school district in the past, and I would say that probably would be the most quote unquote progressive tax structure.

We did not see support even close to two thirds for that measure uh in initial polling, and thus decided it wasn't the best path forward.

Thank you so much.

Um I don't know if the it's it's ready.

Oh, great.

Um, just so this is uh exhibit a to the proposed resolution, and um the question is as you can see on exhibit a there's uh five different categories of funding and then specific examples for each.

And my understanding is that this project list will be something that the voters have available in their voter packet to look at at the time they vote, and if you can confirm that and also indicate how did we um come to the conclusion to get to this level specificity, is it common to have this level specificity, and what are some of the reasons for how we did it this way?

Yeah, I would say this project list to me reads more like a school bond project list than a city bond.

Um I've worked on a lot of city infrastructure bonds where there was not this level of specificity, um, but again, when we're looking at a list of infrastructure needs, you know, north of 800 million uh and a bond that is not gonna come close to that.

We felt that it was important to give some guardrails to the use of funds, right?

And the intent would be that this you know document would you would adopt as a council and would be available to the public, but also you know, if the measure were to be successful, your oversight committee would be reviewing this document when you as a you know, as when future councils make decisions about how to spend the revenue.

So we opted structurally, and I really am veering into the legal lane here.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'll refer to city attorney's office as well to help me out here.

But structurally, we wanted to write something that had some real teeth to it and gave both voters and your oversight committee a good sense of the intent of the measure while also building in enough flexibility so that over the life of the bond um you weren't hamstrung into uses of funds that make sense today that might not make sense 10 years from now.

I will be I will say though that again, there's a lot more specificity written into this than we see in virtually all the city infrastructure bonds we work on.

Now, for school bonds, Prop 39 requires a project list, and so you'll see something like this, and we kind of adopted that approach for your bond.

Um, because we, you know, based on the feedback we heard, we felt like it was an important uh piece of transparency for your voters.

Thank you.

That those are your questions.

Okay, as a clarifying questions, council.

Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you.

Can you put that slide back up, please?

Um, and thank you, Councilmember Baller for bringing that up.

So, my first question is related to this slide and and especially um the some of the pro some of the projects on here.

So uh if we look at the second to the last um grouping, the repairing potholes and keeping streets safe, paving streets and repairing potholes, sidewalk and park ADA improvements.

So those two things, my question has to do with those two, and I wonder whether the uh bond revenue will replace existing revenue streams for the maintenance projects like pavement and ADA upgrades and sewers.

Um you know what I see.

No, no, yeah.

Keep coming.

Um I see our public works director, Aaron Smith, and I'm gonna call on her to please address that.

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

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

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Jensen.

So and just to rephrase the question to make sure I understood it, you're asking if the bond uh revenue would replace existing revenue streams.

Right.

This is about maintenance of current effort and whether.

So as it relates to our streets, we do have existing transportation related funds that come in measure BB, gas tax, things along those lines.

We invest around four to five million dollars a year in our paving program.

Um that is insufficient to keep pace with our aging streets.

Um, so what this uh potential revenue would be would be an infusion to allow us to deal with the deferred maintenance as it relates to paving.

Oftentimes that five million goes towards pavement preservation, so things like slurry seals and cape seals, and once a street essentially is failed or requires what we call uh overlay, it just becomes too expensive to include in our annual plan, and it's as expensive this year as it will be in five years.

So we have a lot of what we would call our local streets that have failed and are in that bucket of deferred maintenance, and what this investment of funds would be allow us to deal with that, increase our overall pavement um score, and then that additional the transportation funding would continue to be our baseline to keep the streets that we do repave with this revenue uh preserved.

And is that true for ADA um improvements as well?

That doesn't come from another source, so we we wouldn't have other sources of funding for ADA improvements without the bond.

Well, just to be clear, I believe Director Smith said we do have those funding and sources that she noted, measure BB, the vehicle registration fund, et cetera, but they're insufficient.

So we have funds, but and to the ADA question.

Sure, yeah, thanks.

And the ADA sort of overlaps a bit with our streets.

Um there are some conditions in our streets that are ADA, and as this council knows, we adopted an ADA transition plan just a few years ago, and it looks at of our built environment, it looks at two things, our facilities like our building facilities, and then things in the right of way, which would be like sidewalks and crossings and signalized intersections and things like that.

Um so ADA as it relates to our facilities, does not have a dedicated revenue stream.

Um however, council two budgets ago did um uh allocate general fund dollars to a first phase of our ADA transition plan and then partial funding to a second phase.

So our ADA transition plan right now is currently partially funded.

Um, and so this revenue would go into the facility sides of things and both facilities as it relates to uh city hall, city hall west, but also our parks uh facilities and recreation centers.

And finally, the other question, the other issue or um area here is sewers, and and as you and I discussed briefly, there was a sewer uh tax has been approved twice in the last eight years.

So this again, I I suspect you'll say that this will supplement those funds.

Yeah, thanks for the question.

So there's sewer, our sewer system, and then we have a separate storm system.

Our sewer system, uh, we already have a rate structure that supports the ongoing capital needs of our sewer system.

So our sewer system isn't even considered in our unfunded dollar amount that we've been talking about.

Our storm system, on the other hand, um, does not have sufficient revenue coming in.

There were two, there are, excuse me, two items uh on uh residents' um tax roll.

Um, one is what we call a clean water program fee that was adopted in 1995, and then another in 2019, and those are related to our storm system.

Those are primarily related to operational costs.

Um most recently in 2019, um, that rate that we adopted filled a gap um for our operational needs and then has a modest amount for capital.

Um overall, we have upwards of 300,000 or 300 million or more in storm needs, and that rate structure is really only supporting that first 30 million.

So this infrastructure bond is supporting that delta, that 200 plus more million.

And as we know, those those needs are getting greater as sea level rises.

Thank you.

Um, my next question for you also, and it well also might be for the for the um the consultants is uh I I noticed in the public information that was put out, it it talks about earthquake safety.

Our bridges and fire stations were built decades ago and don't meet today's seismic safety standards, leaving us vulnerable in a major earthquake.

And so I'm just curious how these funds will be used to improve the size and safety and stability of our bridges.

So of our bridges, so in the original outreach that was done and um surveying that was done as part of this project, there was a proposed idea of the city providing a backup power source uh when there the bridges were non-operational after further consideration and coordination with the county, it's determined best that that would be delivered by the county.

Um and currently, as listed here in exhibit A, there would be no funds put towards the Alameda County related bridges.

Okay, but to be clear, that was used as part of the survey.

I and that was why I pointed to possibly the consultant that the survey was asked people if they wanted to support seismic safety for bridges.

I can step to the side.

I will say our survey that was done in 2025 did include that, and then we modified that based upon further evaluation, and the most recent polling did not include um bridge work.

Right, but I I'm just looking at the the survey that went out, the the mailing that went out to all residents that says that talks about bridges, seismic safety for bridges.

So thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Yeah, director.

My other um question is for I have two more questions.

Um, one that I already mentioned to the city manager, but this might be for the consultant as well.

What proportion of survey respondents came from homeowners?

What proportion from renters, and what proportion from landlords?

Come on up, whoever would like to address that.

Yeah, you have to give me a second to pull some of that.

I don't have all that on my exact fingertips.

Although I do have while I'm doing this, I can answer Council Member Desog's question.

36% of telephone respondents were definitely yes, and 33% of online respondents were definitely yes in the first ask.

Was that the same percent?

No, 37.

Oh, 37, 33.

36 and 33.

So very similar.

Okay, and which was first uh phone versus phone first, online section.

Okay, thank you.

Back in the day, used to print out all these things and have them handy, but that is we're saving trees.

We don't do that anymore.

Um, so council member Jensen, your questions specifically were um what's the homeowners, renters, and landlords.

Oh, landlords, we certainly don't have in here at all.

And I thought you had a different category as well.

Slide deck on slide 30 has homeowners and renters, if that helps you.

Yes, okay.

I was looking for the actual, I know, I know what you're looking for, but might be able to get to it quicker.

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah, so I mean, that has the I think the percentage was um I'm having a hard time identifying the exact percentage of those two, but if you give me a minute or two, I will be able to do that.

Sure, I have one more question for either either you or your colleague.

Does that include city staff or are city staff allowed to advocate or um or um I think I'm gonna ask the city attorney's office to answer legal questions?

Mr.

Shen.

Using city funds.

So but in say a person's individual capacity.

So police officers and firefighters could not be out um during their time on duty or wearing their uniforms to support this.

Certainly not on and whether they're police officers or admin techs or attorneys, uh nobody, no city employee can be out uh lobbying uh while they're being paid by the city on city time.

But they can identify themselves as city employees while they're out on their personal time.

Um, so yes, one can identify where they work for identification purposes only, but not using their office uh for lobbying purposes.

It's a fine distinction, but uh maybe maybe Mr.

Shen, excuse me the interruption might say wearing a t-shirt.

Right, exactly.

Uh as long as it's not you know there are specific laws around use of uniforms, but t-shirts for identification purposes are fine.

Thank you.

Other clarifying questions, Councilmember Jensen?

No, it's just one of that the question that I'd asked earlier about responses from renters and um homeowners.

Yeah, well, my apologies.

I don't have my thank you.

I have no other questions.

Oh, okay.

No other questions.

Okay.

So um with that, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment in this item?

We do come in.

Um I think we have we're up to it looks like 12.

Okay, this is what I'm going to do.

I'm gonna call the break now.

We always take a break after two hours.

It is eight forty-eight.

Nine o'clock is when I would call the break.

So I'm gonna call a break now.

We will be back at nine.

Oh five.

So please everybody be in your um places by nine oh five, and we'll go right into our public comment.

Thank you.

Oh, I don't know.

Okay, everyone.

It is nine o' five, and I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Um, council, will you please take your seats?

And Madam Clerk, let's have our public comments.

All right.

I'll call the first three so that they can come up quickly.

Uh, Mike DeWind, Drew Dara Abrams, and Mitch Ball.

All right, welcome.

And Madam Clerk, did you tell us how many two minutes since I think two minutes?

Perfect.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council, city staff.

My name is Mike DeWynt.

I was born and raised in Alameda, and I've been an Alameda resident my entire life.

Today I have the privilege of serving this community as a firefighter and as president of Alameda Firefighters Local Six Eighty Nine.

It's about whether the people of Alameda should have the opportunity to decide the future of their city.

The independent experts have already done their work.

Alameda Point continues to grow, and our city needs a fire station at Alameda Point.

Our firefighters are serving tomorrow's city with yesterday's facilities.

Stations one, two, and four also require modernization.

So this isn't about building minimum infrastructure needed to protect Alameda on its worst day.

When someone calls 911, they don't care what the station looks like.

They care that terrain firefighters arrive quickly with the equipment they need.

The report also found the point is the greatest need for improved fire protection.

Without a station, their resources are pulled from other neighborhoods, creating a ripple effect that increases response times across the entire city.

A new fire station at the point doesn't just protect the point, it strengthens emergency response for everyone.

I've spent my entire life in Alameda and I've made my career protecting the city.

And I want my children and every family here to inherit a community that is safer, stronger, and better prepared than the one we have today.

So tonight I'm simply asking you to trust the people of Alameda.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker.

Okay, welcome, Speaker Dara Abrams.

Hi, good evening, Mayor.

Council members, Drew Derrick Abrams.

I'm uh I live with my family on the East End and I serve on the Transportation Commission.

I um wanted to share a story from uh May 2025 when on the Transportation Commission we learned a meaningful change to how the city uh budgets, plans, pays for maintaining our streets.

Um, at that point, uh gas tax revenues and other traditional funding measures had sufficiently decreased.

Um, EVs are good, they have other effects, um, and the costs of pavement have gone up.

Um, oil's actually one of the ingredients in asphalt.

So you see that chart.

Um, Scott Wickstrom has to budget for that.

Um, and so what happened as a result is the city tapped the general fund to pay for that annual uh repaving program that you all discussed earlier.

And as you all know, general fund, it's precious.

It's flexible, but it's precious.

And so what's happened for our streets is that whereas previously the city could maintain a state, not get ahead, but maintain a state.

Now the city has to tap that general fund to maintain state.

And, you know, as you heard from our public works director, um, failed streets just have to wait for a future fund source.

You know, that uh that uh rocky road out by the edge of the Bay Farm Business Park, that's one of them.

It's never gonna get um repaired by that five million dollar annual uh amount.

And so it's funding sources like these that need to be considered to bring our streets back up to the top.

So, given that context, many other projects you're hearing about, and this really tight list you're seeing, I'd like to urge you all to bring this option to us voters so that we can invest in our shared city together.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Mitch Ball, then Andreas Kluver, then Adrian Abbian.

Welcome, Steve Ball.

In past city council meetings on this topic, it was proposed that the city consider an infrastructure bond measure paid for by a floor plan area parcel tax.

I came and spoke on this topic and suggested that the city instead consider a lot area parcel tax for three reasons.

It would form a better tax benefit linkage so that properties who cost the city more pay more tax, it would tax more progressively, putting a lighter burden on the least wealthy, and lastly, would encourage housing development rather than discouraging it.

Since then, city staff has now come back with a new proposal for a Prop 13-style property tax, which is unfortunately a major step back in all three of these categories.

You can read my random comment for further detail, but I'm guessing it's a lot of what you already know.

Something that I need to correct here, though, is that bond measures do not need to be paid for by property taxes.

While increasing property taxes past 1% requires they be paired with a go bond, not all bonds are go bonds.

Revenue bonds are also available and can be paid for by parcel taxes, as they are in many cities.

This combination of a revenue bond and a parcel tax is entirely available and was specifically asked in question 13 of the December 5th uh polling, page 40 of exhibit four.

Uh thank you for uh Councilmember uh Bowler for uh pushing on this, and I would like to kindly request that you and other council members continue pushing on this uh topic.

Well, I spoke in support of a lottery of parcel tax in the past.

I was prepared to support a floor plan area parcel tax because our infrastructure does need this funding.

Uh, but I cannot say the same for a Prop 13 style property tax, not just because of its regressive and anti-housing nature, but particularly because of its discriminatory discriminatory one.

Anyone here who read Grapes of Wrath in high school knows that California has a dark history of xenophobia so discriminatory that it was not only direct against immigrants from foreign countries, but also newcomers born within the same country.

This xenophobia can tilting to 1978, where it manifested in Prop 13, and it continues today now that you are being asked to expand upon Prop 13 in your capacity as representatives of this municipality.

Again, the city needs this funding, but the city's model is also everyone belongs here in this proposed tax.

Andreas Kluver, then Adrian Abbian, and then Malia Vela.

Welcome, Speaker Kluver.

Yes, good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members Andreas Kluver, executive secretary of the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council.

And I first I just want to again appreciate the long-standing relationship the Building Trades Council has had with this city and this body, moving forward a lot of very pro-labor and progressive issues that have led to a lot of work for our members.

We'd like to continue this partnership if you decide to place this infrastructure bond on the ballot, which we strongly encourage you to do so, and let it be known.

We will be out there working with all other groups to make sure that this thing gets through and the voters get the information they need to pass the bond.

Obviously, the projects that we've heard about that are really needed by the city in terms of the infrastructure, the fire stations and so forth for the safety of the residents.

But also, given the fact that we do have the project labor agreement, you're going to ensure that this these projects will also provide good union careers for our members, many of whom live in the city of Alameda, and also pathways to apprenticeship for residents and the partnerships we have.

So there's an added bonus there.

So we strongly encourage you to place this on the ballot, and we'll be there partnering 100% to make sure it gets through.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Adrian Abiyan, then Malia Vella, then Zach Bowling.

Welcome, Speaker Abien.

Abuyin.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Steam Council, and staff.

I just want to express my appreciation and also just to let you know I value all the work that went into establishing the facilities plan that you passed this evening, which of course included an animal shelter amongst many other much needed pieces of infrastructure.

Outside of my FAS hat, I just want to express that I'm so glad that there's a partnership exists with the organization so we can provide a holistic and robust animal shelter service in the city of Almeda, of course, that it's a full-service city.

Um I also want to just make sure that I underscore that I support your hopefully your decision to uh put this bond measure on the ballot for November, and that also that hopefully one day funds like these can also be used to hopefully also build a severely needed animal shelter.

As you all know, it you got the F grade, which means not just deteriorating, but it's failing the need for such a vital service in the city for a service that not only prioritizes the care of animals, but just as much as we serve animals, you know, we serve people, because animals have the uncanny ability to speak and transcend beyond any human division, any difference that might exist, but also they're there for us in times that are so difficult to navigate, and really not just do we provide enhanced service at the shelter, but we enhance the way we live in the city of Alameda.

So I ask that you consider that hopefully one day bear with me, that maybe we climb to something like a D for a dog and the facilities great, or a C for cats, or maybe a B for bunnies, perhaps an A for the staff, for the volunteers, and the people that work into making sure we take care of animals, whether it's in proximity to housing that we hope meet our arena goals, or maybe as we consider things like sea level rise, that we also consider the pets that make our life the quality we want to do.

So much our next speaker, Malia Vella, then Zach Bowling, then Ruth Abbey.

Welcome, Speaker Vella.

Good evening, madams mayor, uh, and vice mayor, uh, members of the council, Malia Vela.

Um, you know, I'm here tonight as a mom and as a former vice mayor and council member, uh, who understands the deferred maintenance needs of the city, and a fellow Alamedan to many neighbors who experienced firsthand the flooding uh that was caused by climate change and sea level rise in the last few years.

And I'm here tonight to ask the council to unanimously support placing this proposal uh before the voters this November.

Now is not the time to wait for the perfect.

We can spend lots of time looking for issues and errors and concerns.

But my hope is that we can all come together and unite on this one point and give our voters the opportunity to decide where their money goes and to invest in the future of the city.

As I mentioned, we've seen and experienced firsthand in recent years the impact of climate change and sea level rise.

Storms and sea level rise have led to flooding of our roads, houses, and parks.

Climate change is not an existential crisis for us.

We are facing it as an island and bay community day in and day out, and we cannot afford to wait.

We voted in the past for climate action and resiliency plans.

This will allow us to meet those adaptation and resiliency goals.

We know we have obligations with regards to key facilities and emergency response.

We've committed to expanding safe access to multimodal transit, and we need these funds desperately to see this come to fruition.

So my ask is that this be a matter that get taken to the voters, and I hope that rather than withhold this from voters, you will allow everybody in Alameda to take a stand so that we can maintain Alameda's progress, prepare for our future, and improve quality of life.

Our next speaker, Zach Bulling, then Ruth Abby, then we'll go to our remote.

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Bowley.

Speaker Rowling.

Evening, Mayor and Council.

Yeah, I don't know about you, but that research from the voter research actually really encouraged me.

It makes me proud to live in this community that we have those numbers already that show how much people are invested in our community.

They see the need for this infrastructure and to keep Alameda as great as it is.

We need to invest in our community.

I'm asking for your yes vote on this.

Hopefully unanimously that this is important, that we need this for our community.

But first, I want to first thank staff.

They've been literally everywhere talking to everyone that came to the City of Alameda Democratic Club last month, spoke to us, answered some hard questions from our members, and did a great job.

I hear they're doing that everywhere.

It's up on our YouTube.

It's a great presentation.

I could iterate like all the things this thing covers.

It's already been done, so I won't do that, but I will say this is not the final vote on this.

This is just allowing us to vote on it.

Um this is not the campaign.

Um this is the first step to actually convince voters why this is necessary.

And I plan to help with that uh as much as I can, because this is important to our community.

Um, and this really comes down to, as I agree with some of the speakers about equity, about the best way to do these kind of bond measures.

I will say, yes, the way that it is levied isn't perfectly equitable, but it is far better than say something like gas taxes or sales taxes, which are inherently regressive, and this is somewhat better in some fashion, and it seems the voters are for it, so we should go for it.

Um if this dies tonight, it doesn't mean these problems go away.

We still have to solve these problems.

They get put on our general fund.

It takes away from our parks, it takes away from our critical infrastructure, it takes away from our ability to fund our police.

Those are bad things.

We should actually fund this.

So I'm asking, please vote yes on this and advance this so that we can actually get this on the November ballot when it's the most critical time to get this on the ballot and actually pass this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, are we going remote?

Ruth Abby.

Oh, Speaker Abby, of course.

Welcome.

Good evening, members of the city council, Ruth Abbey from Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.

Uh, we are coming to strongly support that the uh council put this measure on the ballot.

Uh, I you probably only see me when I say that Alameda is uniquely vulnerable to sea level rise.

And um we need to show and we need to allow our residents to prove that we are worthy of that investment and that we would like to invest in our community.

We need to invest in ensuring that our um homeowners in Bay Farm Island uh can get out from the FEMA flood zone, that our residents who would otherwise on the west end be inundated from the tubes and the northern shoreline are shored up, and that our um our shoreline uh on the bayfront is uh appropriately managed with nature-based solutions, welcoming the water and living with uh with all that for our community.

So we have uh we've had a remarkable success and award-winning um planning for uh planning for our future for climate and from resilience, and now is the time to invest in that and give the voters the opportunity to show that they invest in that.

I think earlier in the meeting, uh the mayor mentioned that um federal and state funding will require matching funds and skin in the game, and this is our opportunity for our residents to show that we have skin in the game.

So CASA will be there.

We will be along with the others, uh volunteers, knocking on doors, uh flyering tabling.

We think this is the most important thing that we can do as a community-based organization that was only formed to help the city implement its climate action and resilience goals.

So we uh look forward to um the next phase.

We really ask you to support putting this measure on the ballot so that we can show that we can do this.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker.

Now we're Cindy Johnson.

Welcome, Speaker Johnson.

Good evening.

I'm calling to express my support for this measure and to encourage you to put it on the ballot.

Affordability is a major concern for many of us right now, and that is exactly why I believe this is a smart, fiscally responsible investment that we should be able to vote on.

Public infrastructure requires ongoing maintenance, and delaying that work is not a cost-saving strategy.

It simply shifts and increases the cost into the future.

Construction costs are not going down, and the longer we defer maintenance, the more expensive and disruptive repairs become.

Roads are very clear example.

Alania's pavement quality is currently around average, but if we allow it to deteriorate, we will pay significantly more in reconstruction costs later, and we'll also pay as individuals through increased safety risks and higher vehicle repair costs.

TRIP, a Washington-based nonprofit transportation research organization, estimated in a recent report that driving on deteriorated roads costs an average California motorist over $800 per year in additional vehicle operating expenses.

That's a reminder of what happens when maintenance is deferred.

By maintaining our infrastructure before it reaches that point, we can avoid those much larger costs.

For most of us, the proposed bond would cost less per year than added vehicle expenses associated with badly deteriorated roads.

This measure helps us save money over time while preserving the quality of life that makes Alameda a great place to live.

And roads are just one example.

The same principle applies across all other public infrastructure.

Proactive maintenance is simply good governance and sound fiscal financial stewardship.

I hope you'll give the voters an opportunity to decide this measure in November.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Jay Garfinkel.

Welcome, Speaker Garfinkel.

Thank you.

One is about when the uh tax would start.

Uh would would landlords be able to pass the tax on to their tenants?

Uh would the entire what was it $49 be uh applied even if only say $100,000 bonds were issued.

I question the uh usefulness of an oversight committee that's sort of like the committee that uh checks on the barn after the cow is gone.

Uh I think it would be more cost effective to have the uh independent city auditor review this.

Um, confused about the concern about taking money from the general fund.

The general fund, as you have somebody said tonight, takes care of potholes, street signs, uh safety at intersections and such.

Uh those things we're doing now.

So, how would having this bond uh preserve uh the uh these activities?

I don't quite understand that.

Um, I just want to some of these details explained.

If we need the money, we need the money.

Uh and my grandchildren and great grandchildren will be very happy to pay the interest off uh long into the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Uh Meredith Hoskin.

Welcome, Speaker Hoskin.

Beauty.

Hello, I'm an Alameda resident with a young family who wants to create a long-term quality of life for my family here in Alameda.

I'm speaking in support of staff's recommendation to place an infrastructure bond measure on the ballot so Alamedans can have their say.

This work needs to get done.

Every year we delay projects become more expensive while risk to our community grow exponentially from flooding to ensuring our firefighters have the equipment they need to do their jobs for our safety.

Like many residents, I attended one of the city's community engagement sessions to learn about the priorities and provide meaningful input.

I'm also glad we have you all elected leaders, an exceptional city staff, and community oversight to ensure these sons are funds are spent responsibly.

Now let's get this done.

Please send it to the voters.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

That was our last speaker.

Okay, with that, we will close public comment on because we have no more public comments in the chambers, right?

Okay, we will close public comment on item 7a, and we will move to um council um discussion, vice mayor.

Would you like to lead us on?

Sure.

So, in short, I do support this.

Um, our need um is really closer to $800 million, but at this time our residents seem to be more comfortable with only a $300 million uh dollar bond, which makes sense as most of us are concerned about the cost of living, as noted in the presentation.

But we can at least get started on many needs.

The money will be spent on projects that our residents have deemed most important, safety and infrastructure for um to be very broad.

Um, many projects in these areas have been highlighted as council member Buller noted in Appendix A.

Yeah, um, like stormwater drainage, fire station upgrades, ADA improvements, adaption projects, roads, and signal light replacements.

It is true that a detailed breakdown of each potential project is not listed, but I believe flexibility is paramount.

If we restrict bond funds and then certain projects get grants or fund matching, for example, we would be unable to use the XX funds excess funds for additional projects.

Um, it can also allow us to combine projects for more efficiency and less cost.

I'm very hopeful this bond passes and that there will be strong support by our residents.

Also, I believe that staff and elected officials will be diligent to the needs and priorities of our community.

I also want to note the needs that exist today will not go away, and if we don't get this bond, our current needs will become untenable, and more needs will arise.

And to quote from the presentation, infrastructure needs grow more expensive every year they go unaddressed.

Um, but the five of us do not decide if there will be a bond.

It is up to the voters.

All we are doing tonight is giving our neighbors the opportunity to decide if they want to invest in our city's future.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Councilmember Bowler, may I call on you next?

Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to everyone who showed up tonight.

It's just really encouraging to see so many people both online and here in the council chambers that are so committed to these issues and are really personally very much a part of this potential solution to some really serious problems.

This is a really important moment in this city's history.

If you think about, you know, that accidental existential threat.

If you think about that public safety threat, and the various imperfections in an otherwise beautiful city that we all love so much, that polling where our citizens were so focused on the quality of life and those same categories of items that you now appear in that exhibit A to the resolution that we're considering.

And unlike many communities, this presentation actually includes a very specific list.

It has certainly the main categories, not only the main five categories, but also specific projects that would be authorized through it.

Does it have every cost and dollar attached to that and a timeline?

Absolutely not.

And there would be problems with doing it that way for various reasons.

But what it does have is a really committed staff, a community that really cares, and a community that will continue to have input if the voters of Alameda decide to make this investment.

Because there's citizen oversight that will be part of it as well.

So it's pretty hard to follow from the speakers that we had tonight, because you all made the most compelling arguments that can be made for this.

And ultimately, I think it's because of that investment you're all making, and what every citizen in this community really wants, which is to see this community continue to thrive and to continue to be just the ideal place it is now to live.

So I I enthusiastically support um putting this on the November ballot and letting the voters decide their future.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jensen.

I'll go last.

I'm calling in you now, Councilmember Jensen.

Okay.

I don't have anything to say.

Okay, so you're going to make no comments on this.

Okay, so just for the record, I'm the mayor and I'm going last.

What about Calgary?

So you would like to go after Councilmember Desoc.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councilmember Desag.

Well, thank you very much.

Um, appreciate the comments by uh my colleagues on the dais as well as the contributions of uh the members of the public who attended tonight and um attended um via um Zoom or even uh attended by email.

Um I do think um that this is an important uh moment for all of Alameda.

Um it is without a doubt that climate change is real, and we need to rise to the occasion to deal with it in ways that many other cities across California don't, simply because we are an island, not just dealing with um climate change issues along our shorelines, but certainly uh within um underneath our streets as a result of the rising groundwater.

But if it is true that we need to rise to the occasion uh dealing with uh climate change, it is just as true and it is just as important that we need to rise to the occasion of presenting to the voters a clear list of what it is that we are expecting them to fund.

Now, what we have before us in exhibit A in the um uh presented ordinance, um, it's not so much a list as it is kind of a broad category of uh activities that would be funded.

The categories as it was discussed tonight, um, have to do with preventing flooding, preparing for earthquakes, broad categories such as uh maintaining rapid response to fires, uh repairing potholes and and keeping streets safe.

And within the broad categories, there are specific bullet points, which are more subcategories than lists.

The type of lists um where voters are clear as to what it is they're expected to fund was presented in the uh prior uh agenda item when we talked about, I believe it was five specific fire department um assets that we will modernize, if not create completely new five specific fire department assets with corresponding dollars associated with them.

That is the type of specificity that we need to present to the voters of Alameda in a general bond obligation, um, and that clearly is not included in what's before us tonight.

For example, in either the categories or even the subcategories, there could be a delineation of some percentage of the 300 million dollars will be devoted towards repairing potholes and keeping safe streets.

Some percentage will be devoted towards maintaining fire rapid response to fires, and it's worth mentioning that because the five categories for the fire department itself, just the five five entities, uh five um uh fire department assets amount to 158 million dollars.

Now, as the assistant city manager um Amy Woolridge said, not all of the 300 million dollars is going to be spent on five, but it is important to know that what what is it that we're asking the residents to spend their money on.

Now the argument is being made that this is about letting the Alameda voters decide, in a way it really isn't, because what it really is is letting future city councils decide how to spend the 300 million dollars, because if it was about letting the Alameda voters decide how to spend the three million million dollars, you would have been you would have had a very specific list.

So it's future city council members who can make a decision as to how to spend the 300 million dollars.

Um I do think you know that this and past city council members are certainly um will certainly think about you know what is good for the um for the public, and they will make their decisions.

I have no doubt with a public in interest in mind, but again, the way that this ordinance is written that's before us, as well as the way that the exhibit is presented before us, it doesn't delineate how the money is going to be specifically spent.

Um, and I do believe that there needs to be a list, not simply uh grouping of categories and subcategories of projects.

I recognize that perhaps mine might be the minority view of you know what's before us tonight.

Um, and I understand that.

You know, I make my um decisions uh with wide eyes open, uh eyes wide open, and um, and you know, try my best to represent uh this view of the um of the residents.

So I appreciate, in summary, I appreciate the work that have been gone towards uh leading us to tonight, but in the same way that I decided in 2024 when we had a similar vote, I will make the same um uh decision again tonight in 2026, that I'm still waiting for the list of specific projects that um that we are asking the residents through the city council to fund.

It's kind of like you know, show us the Carfax, show us the list.

Thank you, thank you, Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, and thank you for those comments.

Thank you to staff for for all the hard work with this measure.

So uh maintaining the city's financial stability is my top priority, and I understand that Alameda does not have the financial resources to address infrastructure needs, and that those needs are growing larger every day.

A 300 million dollar local measure is one way to ensure that there's a dedicated funding source for our critical infrastructure needs.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, there are more ways, and there may be more revenue options that could be considered, and that would be less regressive and perhaps even more robust.

Those options were not considered, and what we're hearing about tonight is the only one put forward for consideration by Alameda residents.

Notwithstanding that this is what we have, and this is what the voters may be considering.

And as a school board member, I asked for the same thing, and it was appropriate in that case because seismic improvements were necessary and were site specific with regard to Alameda facility needs.

It does contribute to my decision making, and it does show that there are competing priorities.

So but there will be oversight.

And finally, the establishment of a bond oversight committee will be an important safeguard, I think, to ensure the overall that the community's needs are addressed, the facility needs of our city are addressed, and that the language of the measure is um supported and to improve accountability.

So I again, this is necessary.

I think that the voters of Alameda should have the opportunity to make this decision, and I will support putting it on the ballot.

Thank you for that, council member.

Um I'm the fourth vote, but I have a few things to say.

Councilmember Daysog, I was there for the vote in 2024 when you and then council member and a former mayor Trish Herrera Spencer refused to allow the voters to place an infrastructure bond on the ballot for the voters to decide.

We weren't going to decide anything, the five of us, but state law requires that in order to put something a revenue raising measure on the ballot, we need four votes, which means two council members can hold it hostage if they wish.

And in those intervening two years, our infrastructure needs have only grown more dire.

The risk to our city from climate change, sea level rise, groundwater rise, and so many other things that our staff has been working tirelessly to address, have only grown, have only grown more expensive.

The cost of materials, the cost of oil that we heard about goes into the cost of paving and repaving our roads.

They have only grown.

Let the voters decide how the voters want to spend their money.

You were critical of the um the information that we are we are basing these decisions on.

But council member Daysog, I know for a fact that you refused to meet with our pollster, you refused to meet with our consultants.

Every other member of the city council did so, had all their questions asked, and received all the information they requested.

So, I will call on you when I am done with my remarks.

I am running this, you can make your point of order when I call on you.

I am still speaking.

This city is extremely important, and is was noted by you yourself.

We are an island, we're especially vulnerable, and so we we don't have any time to lose.

Now, it's not a done deal.

We still have to have the voters pass this, but we heard from the pollsters from the consultant that in this day and age in cities around the state, they aren't seeing the polling numbers we're seeing.

We staff did a great job of doing advanced education, providing our residents with the information they needed, answering their questions, and that's what we are basing this on.

Of course, a campaign has to be run.

But we can do that.

And you know, we can always criticize polling data.

There weren't enough, enough ranchers, enough this and F that.

In the year 2000, I co-chaired a campaign to build a new library.

And did our polling show that we absolutely had two-thirds supermajority?

It didn't, but it showed that with a robust campaign we could get there.

And in fact, when we brought it to the voters in November of 2000, it passed with a 78.8% majority because Alamedans get it, they understand need.

We already have folks lining up to volunteer to walk precincts, including environmental professionals, who live in this island who care about the city.

So I am just, I I have sat, I have hoped against hope that this would be a unanimous measure.

I don't care.

It's governance is all about numbers, and all I needed was enough to get this on the ballot to let the voters decide, and then we look at a whole other numbers game.

But again, I am so grateful to our staff, Daniel Miller, Aaron Smith, Scott Wickstrom, Abby Thorn Lyman, and more, Ross McCarthy, our finance director.

You have all been working, Chief Luby, Fire Chief.

You have all been working so hard to bring this measure forward.

If Councilmember Daysog you had consented to talking with our consultant on our pollsters, you would know there are reasons for not doing the level.

But I am thrilled and I will call on you in a minute, but I would love to have a motion in a second for this to move this item forward.

And Madam Clerk, just remind me, do we do this in one vote?

I think we can do one motion that does introduce the ordinance and find and adopt the resolution.

All right, who will make that motion?

Well, point of order.

I think point of order takes precedence.

No, it doesn't.

I will call on you after we have the motion, the second.

Do I have a motion and a second?

Yes.

Um can I just say so moved or should I?

It can be so moved.

Okay, so it's been moved by Vice Mayor Pyers, seconded by Councilmember Boulder, and now we will hear from you, Councilmember Desag.

Well, thank you.

In terms of um communicating with staff, community uh staff had uh requested that I um attend meetings with the consultant.

And in response to that, I said, you know what, there's no need to meet um because here are my questions that I need to have answered.

I transmitted those questions to staff on two occasions tonight.

Staff responded to the answers to the questions.

So the notion that I did not meet with staff and did not make any effort isn't correct.

So just want to say that for the point of order.

Thank you for that, but you did refuse the meetings that were offered you.

I'm not sure how you know you know how I communicate with staff.

I'm not sure how that how you know that, but it was not a refusal.

It was I sent these are the questions.

I transmitted the questions to the staff, and the staff looked at the questions, and they answered some of the some of the questions tonight.

And I appreciate that.

Thank you for that clarification.

We've had a motion, we've had a second.

All in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

That motion carries for it and I think one four to nothing.

For it for um affirmative and one um uh one no.

Thank you so much to staff for all the hard work and time you put into this, all those volunteers I've been talking to.

Let's roll up our sleeves outside this building and we will get to work.

Thank you so much.

All right, we are moving on to item um seven B.

Adoption resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 for the submission of a proposed charter amendment to amend or repeal outdated provisions establishing the policies and procedures for such an election, requesting the county of Alameda to conduct such an election and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure.

Okay.

And Madam Clerk, you're presenting on this one, correct?

Oh, sorry.

I can briefly yeah, yeah.

I can briefly say so much more eloquent.

Okay, so um this um came about from a charter subcommittee of uh the mayor and the vice mayor.

Um they kind of picked up uh went through the entire charter, sent it out to city staff, and looked for all of the outdated provisions or provisions that didn't match current practice.

And so this measure was kind of just a comb through of the entire charter, and there's things as simple as taking out provisions that said things didn't go into effect until a certain date, and then there's things that are clearing up to match like current practices or um what's in the municipal code or things like that.

So um it it does contain quite a few sections that are being amended, um, and um you know that maybe the subcommittee wants to expand on any of those or possibly you know discuss any of those that they could do in the the remainder of the presentation, but in in addition tonight you'll be considering the question, and there's been some potential to potenti amend the question and clarify it a little bit further, um, with adding a few words about conforming to existing practices because that wasn't in the question currently, and then um the the last item that you'll be addressing, and you can also look at the full text of the amendments and make any edits to those or the question, and then the last thing you'll be addressing is if you want to designate argument authors.

Yes, thank you.

Um so thank you for that, madam clerk.

And for clarification, back in I can't even quite remember.

Did you say it in the staff report?

I designated a um charter review subcommittee, which was um the vice mayor, Michelle Pryor.

It was last year in 2025, and um since that time we have met.

Oh, how many times have we met with the city attorney and the city clerk?

Um, at least like four or five, and then I think you guys also met a couple times yourselves.

Right, right, right.

And so to discuss these, and and I thank you, um, Madam Clerk for and city attorney for going through the charter.

I mean, this has been done over the years just to update it to make sure it's as current as possible.

So this really is clean up language, and I think it's pretty clearly stated um on the um I think it's the um the resolution um what we would be um what we would be calling for um it's it's um there's the um the additions are underlined and there's some strikeouts about cleanup language, so um I would entertain any clarifying questions.

Um, and if we have any public comments, we'll hear those two.

Council, any clarifying questions?

Councilmember Jensen.

Um can you uh this is for the city clerk.

What was the date that the council or the date of the action to establish the charter subcommittee?

I don't I don't know that specific date, and I can go back in the record and look, but I I know the first time we met I think was like September of 2025, so it was established.

I think before.

No, no, I mean the public meeting, the the public approval by the city council.

No, it it was established by the mayor.

The mayor just established it.

So this never came, the subcommittee was never approved or or the city council didn't announced it in public session.

Oh, but the council didn't vote on it, I think it's what council member Jensen's asking.

She just formed it.

Yeah, okay.

Thanks.

That's what I was just wondering.

And um, and I for the subcommittee, how did the the issues raised in this recommendation and options discussed were the 2019 and 2020?

There was a lot of robust um charter reform discussion.

I wonder how all of those issues, I don't see much of that in any of the recommendations.

So I wonder how if those were discussed and reviewed by the subcommittee.

Um, I think one that we're not going to hear tonight was um discussed by a previous subcommittee about eliminating the positions of the elected treasurer and auditor.

Um, so but that's not before us today.

Um I can give you like one example.

I do all of the um interviewing with whatever staff members staffs a particular board or commission.

And we I always look over the questions we ask, and and you know, whether if it's a board, it was created by the charter.

If it's a commission, it was created by an ordinance.

And in the um uh, I think it is in the public utility board.

One of the requirements was that there be a mining engine engineer.

No, I I I get what you're saying.

Section 12-4.

Yeah.

And it is saying something about um I'm gonna read the fiscal books and records for each utility under its control and management in the manner prescribed by the California Railroad Commission.

And and then somewhere even before that, yeah.

Um when you look up at section 10-7.

This is on page four of the resolution, um, one member of the public utilities board shall be an electrical civil mining or mechanical engineer, and um we um we changed that to um uh and one of whom shall be and I'm sorry, I can read it.

Yeah, and okay.

So in section 10-3 on page four, um it says yeah, the public utilities board shall consist of five members, one of whom shall be the city manager who shall have full power of participating in voting, and one of whom shall be an electrical, civil, environmental, or mechanical engineer or engineer with experience in alternative energy.

And just for the record, it wasn't the vice mayor and I deciding this would be a good um a good list of qualifying um engineers.

We consulted with uh the general manager of AMP uh Tim Haynes about what what would be practical in today's day and age that um you know mining engineer might have been when we used coal as a source, but we don't anymore.

Anyway, it's it really is um updating and cleanup.

So um, thank you.

Other questions, council, council member boulder?

I just yeah, I just I want to get a sense of that because I think that's important.

There's context, I think, to starting a lot of these, is my understanding.

But for example, um staff for council members, give us basically a page number and a reference if you would.

I don't I don't have I just have some notes, I don't have that.

Yeah, do you want to look at my list?

Will that help in the reserve?

Um no, I can pull that up.

Give me a moment, I'll put it okay, just so we can all literally be on the same page.

Okay, so if anyone else has questions, on page two, yeah, there's uh for section two-three.

So basically, we're I think this is basically exempting particular staff members from uh civil service, and I've just kind of wondered what's the press practice, the reason here, and the and also I think this is probably for part mostly part-time type work, I think.

And I'm going to defer to either city attorney or city clerk or both back and forth.

Uh Madam Mayor, I'm happy to start.

The city clerk, I'm sure, will have way more insights than I do.

Um I appreciate it.

Um to answer your question, Councilmember Bowler.

This is to adopt existing practice, which the council approved last year during your budget hearings to allow the mayor to uh have an assistant given her busy schedule.

And so when that occurred, um it was um when the subcommittee met, it was it was thought that the charter should be revised to be consistent with this existing practice that the council authorized.

Okay, and then on page number three, section two-10, um deals with um they've been.

Yeah, and I'm just curious if that's conforming to existing practice or something different.

Uh I can try and think this one.

We can go back and forth, and so this one I think was it it was a twenty-one days isn't much time, and there they they could run into issues.

So it was this one was more a looking forward at potentially running into a situation where it could be difficult to fill in this time.

And so we were it was just trying to make it a little more reasonable with you know the the current environment and situation.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I have a few other questions for me.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so I know we talked a little bit about the public utilities board qualifications, I think.

And could we could we have four?

Could well we already I think was already addressed though, right?

That's section 10-7 on page four.

I've got the concept of that one.

I remember that one.

Yeah, I think we've already covered that.

Okay, it's now section 10-7.

Yeah, it just moved up and got it.

Oh, right, thank you.

And then similar question as to the historical advisory board, which I think appears in um section 28-3 on page five.

Yeah, and I think that wants to match what's in the municipal code currently that they already have been following that in the municipality.

That's correct.

Yes, yes, yes.

Is that right?

So somehow the mean municipal code was in conflict with this charter.

Because they they delineated more what they wanted in the a little more specific than demonstrated an interest in history, heritage, and architecture of the city of Alameda.

Um, so you know, we do have one architect, a state licensed general building contractor, and then three members with interest in community design.

And that's been a long time that those have been in place.

I don't maybe someone can point me out where it is, but there's a section in here that deals with um the city attorney commencing litigation with either council approval or written instruction of the city manager in some circumstances.

Could you explain that one?

I'm happy to, but okay, and remind us for 8.2.

Yes.

8.2 starts at the bottom of page three, right?

Oh.

Um sounds good, yes.

The city attorney should have the okay.

Yes, I'm happy to.

So there's been a long-standing city attorney opinion from my office well before my time that indicates that um litigation can only be commenced by uh council authority alone.

And so the city attorney's office is always consistently followed that practice uh again, well before my time, and so we're conforming the charter provision to that city appropriate opinion uh opinion from quite a while back.

Okay, and there's a section again if someone could help me that deals with um public utilities accounting where changing the selection for the CPA from the city auditor to the city council.

Yes, the city council has been selecting that auditor and the city auditor has city council always hires the remind us the section.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's in 12- uh four at the bottom of page four.

Yes, yes.

Council's always approved that contract in a very for a very long time, too.

Yeah.

So that's also kind of existing practice.

Yep, we're no longer following the California Railroad Commission.

So, you know, I'll be just up front in terms of like when I first read these, I wasn't sure how much substance was behind all these in terms of changing, and then I we get these explanations which are very helpful.

Um they're not in the staff report.

How do we I know that there's a process for if this goes on the ballot, there'll be arguments, but there's also I guess is there an independent or the city attorney analysis that's part of this too?

Would be explaining these things?

Yes, council member state law requires the city attorney's office to prepare an impartial analysis, and we do that for every ballot measure, and we would do it for this one as well, of course, if the council places it on a ballot.

Okay, okay, thank you.

I appreciate that those questions and answers.

Okay, any further questions, council?

Councilmember Jensen.

This is um a question about seven point two seven-two J amendment to appoint technical advisory experts at such conversation as may be provided by the council.

This it seems to eliminate the council's consent for technical advisory experts appointment.

I think that's to conform with existing practice too.

The council hasn't been weighing it on.

This is are you're referring to 7-2 J Council?

Right.

So is that to say that technical advisory experts are not I mean, which is fine, not appointed by the council historically or in practice?

I think it's talking about the compensation rather than who appoints them.

Well, it eliminates the consent.

So it appears that historically, technical advisory experts or boards have been appointed with the consent of council, and that is being eliminated.

I believe the city manager, this is this is the sections section seven pertains to the city manager, and I believe the city manager has been, especially for contracts under the council's authority doing this already.

So it's just a practice too.

Are there questions?

Council members okay.

So um might I please something.

Perhaps in some of these sections, like section seven-see, we could say pertaining to the city manager, duties of the city manager, something like that might add some clarity.

I think that's a good suggestion.

I'm typing it in the resolution right now if council is okay with that.

Let's see, is there any other that we need to be more specific on let's see, I can look.

Yeah, I mean, perhaps section like section two is about the council, so maybe adding it, you know, for each of those sections to put in which right.

Maybe the title of the section it came from or the chapter that came from.

Yeah.

I could add that to each of those.

Okay.

I think that might provide some clarity and help.

That's a very good point.

Okay.

Yes, I like that.

Um, I can revise the resolution accordingly, no problem.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, anything further, council?

Okay.

So what this is is um we're looking for um we do have one speaker.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

No worries.

Okay, we've so we've we have a remote speaker, um our council questions were answered, so um our public speaker, please.

Okay, we have one in person, Zach Bowling.

Welcome, Speaker Bowling.

Really quick, I'm just asking for the yes vote on this.

Uh there was one thing I over the years I've like sent emails of little things that would be nice in the charter to the council over time, and there's some stuff that that was already in here, no red flags that I found.

Uh, there was one thing in the charter, and I was just trying to find it on my phone of when we did a pass for like general neutral language in the past we missed one word.

And I meant to call it out and I forgot to, but just if somebody does a grep on the the charter, you might find the one word where it wasn't matched, but that's all.

Okay.

That's all.

All right.

I think that's just a typo from the previous amendment, and we can fix that.

Okay.

If I can find it, or if you can send it to me, please.

Okay, yeah.

I remember I was talking about something and it being fixed, but I don't know where the document is horrible.

I think city clerk will find it.

Um no.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um, so we have um we've heard oh we have a public and a remote speaker too.

Sorry.

Uh-huh.

Carmen Reed.

Welcome, Speaker Reed.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Hi.

I'm not sure if you can hear me or not.

We can hear you.

We can hear you.

Okay, great.

Well, thank you so much, Madam Mayor and City Council members.

Thanks for this opportunity to say a few words.

And thank you for your staff for um for their work and uh so but but I do want to say a few things about this specific agenda item.

Um so I sent you a second letter this afternoon, but uh I don't think that you'll be able to read it until tomorrow.

Um but my main concern, um, which I think is pretty obvious here, is that this um this proposal lumps together over 10 different amendments and um so it's not it's very disingenuous to present something like this to the voters really what you should do is I mean it's it's not just a simple language cleanup as as uh you know as the mayor would like you to think, it's actually a lot of substantive um changes, including um, for example, the historical advisory board members that are experts in their field, such as an architect and a contractor, we need those type of people on these boards because they lend um you know a certain level of experience that's necessary, um, you know, in order to, for example, look at architectural drawings and like understand some very very specific things.

Uh and that goes along with the um with the public utilities board.

We also need these experts uh in their fields to be on our boards and commissions to properly um weigh in and uh and you know support our community.

Um in my letter, I have shared with you some court cases that I hope that you will review.

I think that there could be um some legal risk to the city as well if you lump in all of these items in one ballot measure, and as you um are aware, since you have separated other items into say your other agenda items, um, then you know I do think that your city manager and staff are aware that um you know certain things need their own item, right?

So the voters can vote clearly and they can so that they can clearly understand what they are voting for.

So um, yeah, so that's my recommendation is to vote no on this, go over it and then put separate questions on the ballet.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker.

And that was our last one.

Okay, so we'll close public comment on that.

And I just um it's not QA, but I do want clarification because there seem to be some misunderstanding.

We absolutely need and have um a very qualified architect.

I think I've got two actually now on the um historic advisory board and have a licensed contractor.

You will see um when I read my um nominations uh at the end of the agenda that I'm reappointing our um excellent licensed contractor, and um absolutely it was more like vague sort of non-specific language that was taken out, and the same with the public utility board.

Absolutely, we need an engineer.

It's just that we added some more up-to-date types of engineers and we eliminated the mining engineer because um that's just uh not a category that has relevance for our public utility board that oversees the operations of AMP with its 100% clean green portfolio.

Um, so I think there was some misunderstanding.

Um, but anyway, um, okay, so and then Madam Clerk, can you just speak a little bit to um the cost of say putting a bunch of separate ballot items on the ballot?

Absolutely.

So um the unfortunately the city clerks have been trying to work with the Alameda County Registrar voters to get the a final resolution with this, and it's even gone to the elections commissions.

We've gone and spoken at the elections commission meetings, and there's a current practice that the registrar started a few years ago that clerks weren't really aware of and didn't really know about, and they started charging cities double if you put more than four measures on the ballot.

So our 250,000 consolidation fee will become five hundred thousand dollars if we put five measures on the ballot as it currently stands.

We don't know if they're gonna modify it for this election because they haven't given us an answer, but it's just a pretty big well, it's a 250,000 dollar gamble.

So I just wanted to be very frank about it and explain that um, you know, it happened to the city of Albany last year.

They had that fifth measure and they paid double of their whole election for it.

So um, yeah, it's unclear where it's gonna go, and I I just think it's I'd caution the council against doing too many measures just for that reason.

So and we've lumped together cleanup measures in the past before, so I would just add that as well for historic purposes.

We've done and we've included even one time we did a cleanup, and we also included called out a specific part of the cleanup because we were adding prosecution unit to the attorney's office.

So we lumped cleanup and even had a kind of significant part in it.

And so the voters have seemed to do okay with understanding it and uh and following what's going on.

Thank you for that.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, all right.

So um moving along.

So we're looking, um, this is a resolution.

Yeah.

And Madam Mayor, if I may just add one more thing before the motion.

So basically, I have gone through the entire resolution, and for each of the sections being amended, I've said article, you know, whatever it number it is regarding whatever it is, and then the just to specifically get into the record and for the public so that everybody understands the wording that we're adding to the ballot question is um to conform to existing practices and amend and repeal outdated provisions.

So we're adding that phrase into that question.

There's a red line version, I think, in the uh yeah, I can I can upload the red line version.

It's it's not there yet, but I can upload it tomorrow for people to look at.

I don't I didn't have it.

Oh, okay.

I see, I see.

Okay, so yeah.

I council member bowler.

Um, thank you.

And I doubt that the city attorney would be able to uh outdo the city clerk on that response, but because there was that legal sort of objection that was presented in public comment.

Can you just talk a little bit about your understanding if there's any um risk here in terms of uh consolidating these different issues together?

So, Councilmember Bowler, I think what the voter of the I'm sorry, the speaker was referring to is a single subject rule.

That rule actually has not been enforced by California courts against charter amendments as far as I can recall in modern times.

Cities regularly place consolidated omnibus charter amendments to the voters, and they're regularly approved across the state.

In fact, cities place uh a large number of substantive measures all in one charter amendment, and courts have not overturned them.

And so um I think the what the voter uh the speaker was referring to is fairly antiquated case authority that has not been followed in recent times.

Question, thank you.

All right, so we're looking for um a motion to adopt this resolution and a second.

I move that we adopt this resolution.

All right, we have a motion by Vice Mayor Prior, seconded by Councilmember Bowler.

Any further discussion?

I'll offer comments.

Councilmember Desog.

Thank you.

Um I won't be supporting this measure uh tonight, um, because I believe the process that we had um adopted and implemented back in 2019 and to uh 2020, when vice Mayor uh John Knox White and myself were a charter reform committee, um, is something that we should that that should have been done uh in this case.

Um and that was a very robust process where our council member uh Knox White and myself um reached out to organizations uh such as the League of Women Voters reached out to organizations such as the Alameda Citizens Task Force, and came back to the City Council, I believe on six occasions agendized where we went over our process, where we we began our process by saying we're gonna have a bucket list of those things that we think are um controversial or or require a lot more work and another bucket list of charter changes that might be not so controversial.

Um and out of that process, you know, we came the recommendation, for example, to have to make sure that the measure A, the attempt to reform measure A was separated from everything, and out of that process came um recommendations with regard to allowing the city attorney's office to engage in the type of unique activities that that he now engages in, um, as well as the pay raise, as well as a third substantive item had to do with adopting um uh the grand jury uh reforms.

Um but it was a very robust and iterative process that involved council, and in fact, we came to city council in May of 2020 with our final recommendations purposely to say that well, you know, that gives us time between May and July.

Should we change our our minds?

So I you know, I I think the process was not as served as well as as uh back in 2020, so um, and and there might be some things in here that we just don't realize until too late that it's it's it's very um profound um that that we're um uh uh adopting.

Um so um I'm I'm I prefer what we did in 2020, so that process.

So Councilmember Desog, um can you point to anything here that you find um substantive and controversial because I do remember I think I appointed you and and uh Councilmember John Knox White to be that subcommittee and I think what my recollection is the topics that you handled and considered were more substantive than just cleanup, but um give me um give me an example if you will to help me understand your concerns.

Yeah, there could be um certainly substantive items in there that we that we catch just too late, and you know we think that that is just a cleanup, but then we too late realize that.

Oh gosh, you know, that we didn't quite realize what the implications of that decision are is, you know.

So I mean, there's just so many.

I mean, I don't know how many are there.

Is there like 15 recommended changes to the charter here?

I so that's the most I can say right now.

Okay.

So you haven't had the opportunity to read them, is that it?

Well, I've read them all, and you know, um, and you know, for it to sink in, I might maybe later on I might realize that it is substantive and profound.

Okay, any further counsel comments?

And again, for the record, this is to put this on the ballot to allow the voters to decide, and they would have every opportunity to decide if there's something substantial and profound that they don't want changed.

Um, uh Vice Mayor Pryor.

Yeah, I would say this this is truly a cleanup, and the reason why we parsed it out from the other charter amendments is because you know we're just making language concise and deleted and deleting dated references.

Uh we need to there are some things where we need to adhere to state law or make informal practices part of the charter.

Um, and it's cost prohibitive to put all the language cleanup for every edit.

Um I mean overall it's it's innocuous.

It's clean up.

So any further council questions, comments, council?

Thank you.

Yeah, I I thank you, Councilmember Desag.

I agree with your points about the lack of transparency in the process.

And while it may just be cleaning up the charter and removing obsolete language and establishing the provisions that are actually technically being used and are in place, it could have been and it should have been more transparent.

So I will support this measure, particularly because I have had a chance over the past 45 minutes to get more information through robust questioning, which wasn't available in the agenda report, unfortunately.

But uh as we look at the other charter amendments, I I probably won't be supported because it's just bad government to rush these things and and jam things like this through when the public really should have an opportunity to comment and provide information.

All right.

Well, thank you for that.

Um let's see.

We had a motion by Vice Mayor prior statement by council member bowler.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

The motion carries four to one.

Thank you.

Um, Madam Clerk, let's move on to item 7C.

But Madam Mayor.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

If I may I I believe the council also needs to designate for uh members to write arguments in favor and against the measure.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Um I am wondering um uh if among the three on my right and on my left, if council member bowler would like to work with me on either, is it writing the yeah, okay.

We need to um designate the author of the committee.

It's a subcommittee to write.

Okay, okay, but it has to be subcommittee of two.

I mean it can be two subcommittees or should it be one.

Well, so you can do one subcommittee that could do both the argument in favor and then the rebuttal if it if there is any.

Um, and then you could do, you know, one for each of those, or you can do one subcommittee to do both.

Okay, um, well, let me ask um uh council member bowler and vice mayor prior, would you two like to be um the subcommittee that drafts those arguments?

For this is 7B, and it would be as the city clerk indicated, the argument in favor, and if there is an opposition that files uh an argument opposing, uh then you would also author the rebuttal.

And I would say, um, oh, let's see, what else do they need to know?

They the and you'll decide who the five signers are.

You can have up to five signers, so the authors you can have the authority to pick those.

If can I just have to clarify?

Yes, you might have to do that.

That's a good clarifying question.

Yeah, just um generally, when does this when does this rule kick in?

Versus, you know, obviously we didn't do this in 7A, so oh, we'll do that at the next meeting for 7A.

Oh, because it's a second meeting.

Because that one has to come back.

So you didn't place that one on the ballot tonight.

That's why that one will come back.

But it's in the isn't it the body of the staff report when yes?

The body of the staff report does have the deadlines.

Um I can call it up.

Well, I have it up already.

Let me just open it and read it really quickly.

Which is why it was important to hear this tonight.

Yes, it gives you more time, a little bit more time.

So the uh direct arguments uh are due, and and those, you know, basically the anybody from another side can submit against.

So those are due.

Oh my gosh, I need glasses.

Uh-huh.

There Tuesday, July 30th, 2024.

So you have until Tuesday, July 30th, 2024.

Oh, 2026.

Yeah.

Oh, I'm in the wrong report.

I had up the other report.

Let me get that was very confusing too.

Thank you, thank you.

Uh, let me get the right dates for you.

Uh, because that didn't seem right.

Okay, it's Thursday, July 23rd.

That does seem very long.

Thursday, July 23rd, they're due at 5 p.m.

And uh information about the form that's for the signers and all that will be emailed out to you guys tomorrow.

And then if there is argument against rebuttals would do be due Monday, August 3rd.

Question.

Um, Councilmember Days.

Does the City Council um also approve those who would uh write the nay opposition?

You can yeah, oh well then I would be happy to do the the city council could choose uh from its members who want to write a rebuttal the rebuttal against.

Um with all due respect, it is my intention not to ask anyone who's running for office who's on the ballot in November to um be drafters.

I think it's just better practice not to the question.

I mean, if you're I mean, if are you talking about writing the opposition to oh, I mean we don't approve that, right?

Uh the council could approve that if the council did not choose someone to write the opposition, council members could still write the opposition without council authorization.

Okay.

And we still have to turn it in July twenty-third.

Well, and yes, but um city determination, why would we designate someone to write the opposition to a motion that we're to an item that we're supporting?

So the council had oh, I think the city clerk wants to see it.

You can finish yours first, but I have something to add.

I was gonna say the council could do that, it would just give give priority if there were multiple um people writing, and that the city clerk will be able to choose that person as the first on the list.

Um it just gives priority.

But it council members can write anyways, and they would have priority anyways, and so they're likely to be chosen uh in any event, but uh there the elections code specifies an order of priority.

That's exactly right.

That's what I was gonna jump in in on.

So council members are first, bona fine organizations are second, general electors third.

So, yeah.

Oh, okay.

So I don't do that this often.

That this often so um, I'll leave it to you.

I mean, I think I'll still write, but I think you can designate that would appreciate that.

Get your name into the clerk early is what I would say.

It's when it's submitted if it's multiple or submitted.

Yeah.

Because anybody could be out there writing as many as they want, and then the priorities upon submission.

Okay, so be mindful of that deadline.

Yes, okay.

Speaking, I'm sorry, what was the October deadline for the rebuttal?

I just want to put it in.

It's not October, it's August.

It was August, yeah.

August third.

August third.

Thank you.

Yep, Monday, August 3rd by 5th.

By 23rd for the direct direct um argument in favor, and then um August 3rd for the response to any rebuttal.

Yeah, and uh you'll be transmitted the other side once the first deadline closes, and then you you'll both get the other side and be able to write that rebuttal.

And the deadline will be re-emphasized in that email.

Okay, any other questions, council?

July 23rd is Thursday, right?

Yes.

Okay, all right.

Thursday, July 23rd and Monday, August 3rd.

Yes, correct, correct.

Thank you.

5 p.m.

Okay.

Um we voted, we designated what else.

Yeah, you need to vote on the right.

The council needs to vote designating who's arrived at the argument.

Okay, okay.

All right, so we need a motion.

Okay, well, I would like to move that the subcommittee to both draft the argument in favor and um the rebuttal to any um argument in opposition, be vice mayor, Michelle Pryor, and Councilmember Greg Bowler.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh, I'll abstain.

I don't know.

All right.

And Councilmember Jensen, did you vote?

I don't know.

Okay.

It helps if you use the microphone.

Um, just and it'll get into the record that way too.

Okay, so that passes with a vote of four in favor, and when opposed, you abstained.

Abstain.

Okay.

All right.

I didn't.

Okay.

Um, are we done with that item?

Yes, you're done with that one now.

Thank you for catching that.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, we move on to item seven C.

Adoption resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 for the submission of a proposed charter amendment to amend section three.

Am I reading?

Yes, section 310 pertaining to leases and sales of city real property, establishing the policies and procedures for such an election, requesting that the city county of Alameda conduct such an election and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure.

And here's where my iPad froze.

Okay, so I can give a little background on this one.

Yes, because this one came before the city council in 2024.

Um it is basically the lease process in the city differs from a lot of other cities, and it's much more involved in the ordinance having a first and second reading and then 30 days to be effective, um, and then the four affirmative supermajority vote, you know, kind of were the focus of potential options and ways to change it.

Uh it didn't get placed on the measure, it actually was withdrawn in 2024.

So this was another one that the sub council's current council subcommittee picked up and uh decided to revisit and craft a new uh potential measure to bring to you guys tonight.

And it's the same thing, it's amending just that one section three.

This one is very specific and amending that one section, and you're approving tonight the ballot question and the language of the charter amendment and then designating the our argument authors, right?

And and so um the um what we're changing is yeah, it's there in the in the staff report.

So we amend section three-10 to change um is it sales or leases or just lease?

Oh yeah, so that is so we kind of the the ordinance itself, the current section of the charter, the way it was written, said that it kind of lumped together sales and leases.

And so one of the things we were doing is we're um changing it to by resolution instead of by ordinance for sales and leases, and then the next part is being distinguished further where there the distinction is that um you created an exception for tide lands because that are already existed, and then except for leases um that are not to exceed 10 years, you would get rid of the supermajority vote is the language that is being presented.

If it's the lease for less than 10 years, and um and I know that this is something that has come up with um say base reuse and economic development, and I I wonder, and we have our base for use and economic development director, Abby Thorn Lyman.

Would you like to just address um the proposed change changes?

Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor.

Abby Thorne Lyman, Director of Base for Use and Economic Development.

I'm here for the first time with history.

I've been here long enough that I have history on this matter.

So I I mean, you all are the elected officials, so you understand the dynamics of councils.

I won't I won't speak to the dynamics of four votes versus five.

I will say a couple of things.

A typical commercial lease is around 10 years.

Um, it is it is much less often that my team is bringing forward a longer term lease, and when we are bringing forward a longer-term lease, it is most often because we are doing development or major major improvements to a commercial property where it might trigger um long-term investments that uh that a private investor is trying to amortize over an extended period of time, for example.

Um we have done it in a couple of this body has done it in a couple of instances where we have very long-term tenants who have asked for it, and and because these are um, you know, just by way of example, faction brewing, one of the original Alameda Point tenants, right?

Somebody who we was really beloved in an institution, we have made exceptions to the 10-year mark.

So that's kind of the significance of a 10-year mark is I think if we're bringing more more common than not, if we're bringing a longer term lease, it is it has to do with the fact that this is either development or perhaps in the case of Thailand, it's lands we can't sell, but we really do want a long-term tenant.

So that just gives a little background on duration.

I will just speak to dynamics of the four versus three vote in terms of how I am communicating to businesses that are coming to Alameda, because I think it really does change how I how I am communicating to prospective tenants.

I am I am trying to channel this body and channel what we have discussed in either in closed session or private, you know, in prior items to anticipate that we have items that you know this this body would support, right?

But I think when we have three versus four votes, I will I will say, um, or you know, I I am trying to channel the politics of this body when I am communicating to prospective tenants.

We might have tenants who are bringing uses that I know that that the majority of council members would not support.

So I discourage like data centers.

I will send you away, right?

A storage unit, I will send you away.

So I do I I think I just want to say, sort of, like subjectively that the our reputation as a major landlord, one of the largest city landholders, I would argue in California.

Our reputation affects who comes to visit our city and then think about leasing, and and I and I think that this this change would have an impact on that reputation.

And a positive impact, I take it.

I a positive impact, I would argue.

All right.

And while we have our base for use in economics development director, does anyone have any questions on this topic?

Yeah, city manager.

I try not to chime in too often, but I actually appreciate that.

Could Director Thorne Lyman also speak to ordinance versus resolution and just moving things through the process because it is part of this amendment as well?

Yeah, and that is, and and I apologize because I uh um so the city clerk did come with some of the history.

We did research back in 2024 on cities, which cities had super majorities, very, very few had super majority requirements.

I think it was Oakland and one other.

Um, and cities really are more mixed around an ordinance versus a resolution.

Um, you all know an ordinance does require the two votes, so it does, you know, just delay the time that it takes us to enter into a lease agreement.

Um, and so um, yeah, that that is that is really the significant difference is we are we are bringing it twice.

And you know, that's that's two opportunities to say yes or two opportunities to say no.

So is that uh city manager?

And just the timing that it takes to get a space, to lease signed.

Absolutely, and I think one of the things we're seeing with a lot of the kinds of tenants we have coming forward today is timing is really critical, and maybe this has always been true, but I can just speak to right now at this moment where we have a lot of VC funded tenants for whom they are trying to hit investor milestones.

Uh deliver this demonstration facility, prove this thing can work, get that thing up and running.

And for them, time is in fact, I would argue far more important than money for a lot of them.

A lot of them are like we got to be up and running in 60 days.

The the ordinance process um really does make that a struggle.

And and by way of example, the the August recess means you're not gonna see us bring any any lease any leases to the next meeting because we will have a six-week breaks where we're sitting and waiting.

So it it does definitely impact that timing.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for that, Councilman Red Bowler.

Don't go away.

Thank you.

Director Thorn Lyman, thank you so much for that was very helpful.

I I found your comments very helpful.

Um, can you explain the carve out for tide lens?

Because I understand this that um leases over 10 years, or sales over 10 years, or all sales, excuse me.

Leases over 10 years or all sales would be four votes, but if it says except tide lens, does that mean that tide lens for leases over 10 years would be three votes?

That's how I read it, and so why?

What's the rationale if you can if you feel equipped to answer that?

Um, I I was not involved in drafting this, so I would actually ask the clerk the clerk if you could, or maybe you could just read it to I'm sorry, because you could just read it to me.

And I I certainly can talk about the dynamics between tide lands versus regular leases.

But yeah, the wording, the specific wording is just one little exception, and it's so it just will what it will say now.

Tidelands weren't addressed at all before, and so now what it'll say is no real property of the city except Tide Lands shall be loosed in a period in excess of 10 years or sold upon the except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the council.

Okay, do you think that's it?

Yeah, I'd be happy to just speak to tide.

So um most of our tide lands that we are leasing are marinas.

Where we are the only real way we can lease a marina is a is a long is a long-term lease, right?

Because we're leasing to an operator uh of the marina space, and they are we're looking for them to do major capital repairs oftentimes that would require a very long-term lease.

We are not allowed to sell tide lands, um, period.

We are we are an agent of the state in essence.

Um maybe I got that legally wrong, but I think that the spirit is there.

Um, so we would always be doing a longer-term lease for Tide Lands.

Um the exception to that is in Alameda Point.

Uh there's a strip of land where City Hall West is situated and then running north to the estuary and south to the lagoon, where um there are a couple of properties where we might do a shorter term lease just because they are not waterfront properties, just the way that Tide Lands was renegotiated.

We ended up with inland property that that has that designation.

So that's the only exception.

Um there's um only one real leaseable building there, which is the building that PICA is in, and they are on a um uh either a five or ten year lease.

So that's the only exception where we might do where I could see us really doing a five or ten year lease.

Everything else is really going to be about peer space, marina space, space that is very challenging and costly to maintain where we need that longer term lease in order to to really have an operating facility.

Just a follow-up, thank you.

Um because I do find this confusing.

And but in terms of the thought that there are some things that we want as a community based on our current charter to have a supermajority will the people express through our city council and those four votes.

Why would we not apply that same rationale to Thailands given sort of the environmental contours of it?

And in addition, if if you feel comfortable um commenting on that, but also in addition.

You've indicated that it's a fairly narrow class of properties with these marinas, and and so I would wonder whether or not the same business uh friendly concerns really apply to that, given that they're so specialized.

So the question is why um why wouldn't we apply the supermajority to tide lands?

Sorry, council member, the question is why wouldn't we apply the supermajority to tide lands?

Right.

Um I think I think really council could go either way.

Like I I think these these are long-term leases.

Um most often I I think it's it's just I think it was really to the clerks.

I mean, I'm just conjecturing here that that there was no mention of tide lands before.

So now it's mentioned, but I I think uh from a development perspective, I can't see a whole lot of arguments one way or the other.

And I guess I would just say I think it was because the uses that can be made of Tide Lands property are so limited, and we know what those are ahead of time, and so then it is a matter of trying to get projects moving forward, um, and just um, yeah, that was there's there's a little more um specificity when you're dealing with the tide lands lease.

Did you feel like it's a sub committee that there's been problems with that in the past for do you remember?

Or I don't know if you actually dug into the history on that.

Um I feel that for the subcommittee.

I mean, I've been on the council longer than the vice mayor.

I can certainly remember times when it was very challenging to move forward.

Oh, I can absolutely recall times when it's very challenging to move forward.

And then a project, I think I want to say it's one of our marinas.

I can't remember whether it's let me to marina or different one.

It just it just stalls in place um for a time.

And lost opportunities means sometimes you lose developers, things cost more money when they come back.

So it's a matter of practicality, and and at the same time, if you get three affirmative votes, I mean, that says something, and um but but certainly longer than 10 years, um well, except in the Thailands situation, as um Director Thorne Lyman was describing that because these do involve capital improvements, generally they need more time.

But if we're not selling the property, you know, I mean, certainly sale or a longer lease of just normal property, yeah.

I think the supermajority is fine, but you um it's both, and I appreciate the city clerk helping us do the survey of what other cities are doing, and they're and and you help too, Ms.

Thorn Lyman, that um they're moving these projects along more efficiently, and so it is a competitive business.

We want to, you know, we want to get these attractive business uses and not lose them to someone else.

So I think it's a balance that we can achieve.

Yeah, and just I'll just say I I think that's a good argument.

I also think that you have to balance it against potential environmental objections and if if this change as it relates to that narrow part of Tide Lands would make it harder for some voters to put on it, put latch on to this.

Um I'd be curious if this either the city clerk or the city attorney too have any specific extra information on that narrow question.

Okay, all right.

All right, thank you so much.

Yeah, um, yeah.

Councilman Dayside, was that you?

Yes, thank you.

Um, so my understanding of the geographic delineation of the Tide Lands is that it let's start from Southeast working to Northwest.

I believe the area where the um um uh surf um project is contemplated, that's tide lands, and it goes and it goes towards all that towards Hornet south of that road, whatever that road name of the road is.

So that's all Thailand.

Yeah, and then the portion of the um marina where the Hornet is located and where the uh marriage ships used to be.

I believe that's Tide Land, and then you keep going up, and then you cut across on the um waterfront park, that's tide land, and then you come down onto the other side of seaplane lagoon, that's tideland, and then there's that corridor that you spoke of, and then there's a big portion of Tidlands area that runs from where you enter um the main gate of Alameda Point, that is on the estuary side.

The main gate.

I don't know why they called the main gate years ago, but anyways, the main gate, and then the road that that um imagine the road where that's in front of the um gym, um what used to be the gym, um, and imagine that road keeps going out all the way to the end of uh Alameda Point, so that north of that road, including all of the um of the area where the VA would be, that's Tide Lands.

So the Tide Lands area is a pretty large area, and if the VA abandons their project, um, you know, who knows what's gonna happen out there.

Um so it's a lot bigger than I think just that little corridor that snakes down the middle of Alameda Point.

Um so what this is basically saying is for properties in the Thailands area, um except in the Thailands area, properties except in the Thailands area.

They're not subject to the four-vote rule because it says except in the Thailand.

So for properties being sold, the four-vote rule doesn't count for and you couldn't sell tide lands to begin with because it's tide lands, um, so you'd have to lease it.

So for properties that are going to be leased long term, if this is passed, the four-vote rule would not apply in Tide Lands.

So there is a way where leases become effectively sales through ground 99-year ground leases.

So basically, you could affect basically a purchase through a 99-year ground lease Thailand's property.

So and you wouldn't be subject if this passes, you wouldn't be subject to the four vote rule.

Just the one clarification is that tide lens is restricted to commercial industrial leases.

Don't cut off the speaker.

Sorry, 60-year leases for tide lens.

Okay, 60 years lease, and then maybe an automatic.

I'm sure they can still do a ground lease for 60 years.

Okay, we're gonna pause quickly.

Thank you so much.

Um Director Thorne Lyman.

We're gonna pause quickly because we haven't done this for a while, but we need to take a vote before 11 o'clock to hear um three really well, four items that require um uh that we that require that we vote to go past 11 o'clock.

And those items are seven, um we are on seven C now, so that's okay.

Um 7D has been continued, but we want to also hear tonight items seven, E.

Well, um, because we have the folks here, so let's hopefully get to seven E, Evan and Frank, G is in uh girl, and those are all on the aquatic center, and then I'm going to quickly read all of the nominations for the boards and commissions that I have interviewed to date because it's a two-step process.

I'm just reading the nominees' names today, and then at our next meeting on the 21st, we will vote to approve them, hopefully.

Um, but it's a two-step process, so I want to get it going now.

So I need a motion and a second to hear those four items before we adjourn, and that is seven E F and G and 11A motion moved by council member Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye.

I believe that was unanimous.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay, um, all right.

So um let me ask this.

Is there I'm and I'm gonna ask you, Councilmember Roller, it would you be more comfortable if we excluded the Tide Lands trust language?

Tell us how you feel.

I do just because I in doing the balance and thinking about keeping as many voters with us on this as possible, because I do think that the arguments in terms of streamlining a bit for the leases that are under 10 years makes a lot of sense, and I just hate to add a little extra confusion, and potentially to a lesser degree of some type of environmental concern to this to the mix.

Yeah, I I hear you.

Um I'm kind of agnostic on that.

I can see it both ways, but I'd like to move this along and get it on the ballot.

Um, Vice Mayor, you were the other half of the subcommittee.

Do you have feelings on this?

The uh, um, I was gonna say I thought we I just had it up and I moved it, sorry.

Um the way I'm gonna sorry, I'm gonna pull it up.

Um sorry, I'm just very slow right now.

I get it, trust me.

Um, okay.

It's and we're looking for seven on the resolution.

If you're on the resolution page on page two, it's okay, seven C.

Um, it's um, isn't it section three-10 subparagraph C?

No, sorry, I meant I meant agenda item seven C.

Yeah, sorry, and I was highlighting the staff report, so and I just was there.

Um, so you know, okay.

So it just sorry, so it yeah, so the cleanup was for section seven, or the cleanup, the yeah, that for um changing section through 10.

Um, page two of the so yeah, because I I see, you know, it's like ABCD.

There's four things, and one of the four things does say no real property of the city except Thailands shall be leased for a period in excess of 10 years or sold except so I I don't um, so I I just read this is that this just needs four votes, you know, tide lands over ten years.

The wording is confusing.

Yeah, um, city attorney, do you want to weigh in?

Yes, um, Madam Vice Mayor.

So as it's currently vote uh written, um the tide lens will be exempt from the forward vote requirements no matter how long the lease.

And I think the current question on the tables whether you would just remove it so that tide lands would be treated like any other real property in the city, that they would be subject to the 10-year below tenure, three votes above tenure, four vote requirement.

And I think that's a functional.

Yeah, I think I agree that we should do that.

Is that where you're thinking to have consensus?

Okay, and to clarify that the Thailand's property can't be sold.

Right, and we don't need to do that here because state law requires that it can't be sold.

So it's got it.

It would be fine.

I think the only change would be that we would just remove that little accept Highlands.

The we would just remove those two words and uh, yeah.

So no real property of the city shall be leased for a period in excess of 10 years or sold except upon the affirmative for a period in excess of 10 years except for except on the affirmative vote of four members of council.

So I do I really appreciate Director Thorne Lyman's you know just helping us see more clearly what it's like from her side from her department's side and ordinance, you know, first reading, second reading, and then you know, get back to the party and hope they're still in play.

And it is it is a time when we're needing to move with more deliberate speed, and we've got a great race for us and economic development team behind us.

And what else did you want to add?

Uh my apologies.

I I just have one other thought on this, which is that rather than removing it, we may just want to say include tide lands because tide lands aren't necessarily real properties of the city, they're real properties of the state.

So to be really clear about what the council is intending, um, we would say no real property of the city including tide lands.

That way it's it's clear in the future that it'll be treated the same way.

Yeah, I like that.

Okay, okay, okay, we're good with that amendment.

Okay.

All right, anything further?

All right, um, so what I need on this one is a um a motion to adopt this resolution and I actually have one question.

Please.

The um, and this may have been answered, but I'm still not clear.

What is the um why was the tenure tenure um provision important to maintain?

I I understand why it's important, but to maintain the supermajority for leases over 10 years, and and how critical is that?

And how many minutes?

That's two questions.

How why is it so critical?

Um, and actually two questions.

And what uh can you you mentioned and I know in the um staff report there's discussion of other cities the that do or do not have supermajority requirements, so those are my two questions.

Um the 10 I guess that as to why it's important or not.

I mean, I mean, of course, would I love to always have three council votes?

I would, I'll be I'll be honest on a personal level for all things, but um, but I I do think that the the demarcation of the 10 years is we're much more likely to be doing a lease that involves major commercial improvements over 10 years because we're gonna be perhaps asking our tenant to put a new roof on, maybe they're planning to do some major improvements.

It's it's it's going to be more akin to development when you get over that 10 year mark in in many, many cases.

Not in all cases, but in many cases.

So I think that's kind of the value demarcation is um that some folks may feel that a higher bar should be held with the council.

Um if we are talking about a commercial tenant coming in and doing major improvements to a building um that is more similar to development.

Um, so I I think that's that's kind of what I would see as a reason that tenure threshold might exist.

Does that exist elsewhere?

Like, for example, in other um large property owners, uh railroads or BART or other places that tenure.

That's something I've researched.

Um I will say in terms of the supermajority requirement that it's only it was only like two other cities that have a supermajority requirement at all, but I didn't um we we reached out and we were calling the cities, calling the community development directors, calling public works.

Um I didn't see that nuance, but we weren't also looking for it at the time we did the research.

And so, did this 10-year demarcation this 10-year proposal come from you or or was it Laura or did the subcommittee just identify it as a potential?

Um, I am trying to remember, I think to the point Ms.

Thorne Lyman made earlier, Director Thorne Lyman, that we see a lot of leases that are up to you know three years, five years with the extension that get up to 10.

And at a time when we are trying to attract business and we're trying to, you know, bring revenue in for Alameda Point, um, and with this change in in VC money and people ready to move now, we we need to keep up with that, and so a simple majority is still a majority of the council, and um it just uh we we're trying to um uh um balance that and you know, as I'm thinking about it, we also this all started the subcommittee when our previous city manager Jen Ott was in place, and of course, she, like our current city manager came from a planning background, and I do recall um Ms.

Ott was very frustrated at times at some missed opportunities, and so you know, working with we're really lucky to have the economic-based reason economic development staff we have.

You know that Miss Thorn Lyman comes from BART.

And so we we didn't just do this in a vacuum, but we did look around to see what other cities were doing.

But yeah, this is how far back we are.

Are there other cities that have this tenure?

So to your point, there are other cities?

Most of them do a simple majority, but with regard to the 10-year requirement, the 10-year um supermajority.

And again, as I recall, it was based on some experiences here where it's like why why are we doing this?

And of course Jen had come back to us from Hayward, so she had other um, you know, experience with development there.

I I just I try to be receptive and responsive to staff because they are doing their best to carry out what we want to achieve, which is development of the point, which is bringing revenue in um to that base revenue fund.

So I don't I I mean, hearing from Jen, Ms.

Ott, our former city manager, hearing from Director Thorne Lyman, discussing it with the vice mayor and city manager and city clerk that I can take that on faith.

I I trust their judgment, and they think it would be good for Alameda.

Let me just make sure I'm done that Council Member Jensen's done, and then I'll call on you.

I mean my A know was to address that.

Oh, to address that, okay, all right.

So also, too, there was an example of uh tenant who got a lease years ago, and it was a very long-term lease, it was more than 10 years.

I'm just trying to be vague.

I'm vague on purpose.

Um, but that they locked in a rate that was so low, like it it did, it's doing us a disservice.

So I I think like having like that experience in mind and just other things, and that the fact that it's currently four, it just you know, I I I feel like we did have a robust discussion, and so we were like, Well, hey, this 10-year mark at least, you know, doesn't lock in um future councils into things like that.

Um, so I think that was one of the considerations.

Um, and so we're like, okay, so let's do three, you know, and then just because we do have I think places like we just do have places that might want longer term lease, and this just was a nice um, what do you call it, like safeguard guardrail?

Um that that was my recollection of the conversation.

So I have I have something that you're gonna do.

That's the council member.

So this was brought to you by Jenna and um Abby brought this for the 10-year um, I do you I would say it even started before that.

That that was the later thing, but it was picking up on the 2000 2024, that it came to council and then didn't proceed.

Well, that was my right, and that's where they started was that 2024.

That was when it is in Miss Ott.

And that's kind of why I brought it up because there was no discussion of any 10 year limit.

It was a it was a full no just elimination of the uh of the supermajority.

But it that's where the whole discussion overall started, and it just went into further.

And to be honest, um, Jennifer Ott and I did discuss it at length, and she never presented to me the idea that a tenure that there should be some tenure or eight year, twenty-year um supermajority beyond a certain certain lease term.

So that's why council member Jensen.

If I can ask you, are you arguing for just doing it across the board?

I would get rid of the supermajority period.

I don't see how it's necessary and how a 10-year lease differs from an eight-year lease or a 15-year lease, and and to the point that um the vice mayor made as well.

I I I don't think this would apply, but I'll ask the city attorney.

Is our contract with Greenway?

Is that a lease of the property?

Uh yes, it is.

So in this case, that would have required uh for member major supermajority.

I don't even I wasn't here, I don't know what that vote was, whether it was a simple majority or a supermajority or what, but it it was a supermajority.

Just a little more complicated because the parties that were originally contracted with were not the parties you might be thinking of more recently.

Um that is a very interesting um suggestion that actually I could get behind how do other get behind it.

How do other council members feel may I respond?

You may okay, thanks.

Um, and I think I want to respond directly to council member Jensen's sort of initial inquiry.

I can't do that.

Just do it through the chair is how you do that.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I think the way I think of this is that the voters have already decided that if the character of the city is going to be up for fundamental change, the cities own land and it's gonna be sold, or and now this by this tenure rule, it's gonna be leased for long term, then you're making big changes to substantial pieces of the public's lands.

And when that happens, the at least up till now, right?

The the voter will has been through the prior through the existing charter that that those decisions are made with four votes, not three votes because the supermajority helps um protect and ensure that the long-term view has the most vetting, has the most support, and I feel like that's the foundation from which we start.

That's what the voters already accepted.

I feel strongly that we should not extend um this rule past 10 years on on leases for that reason.

I think it's important just to take the narrow path here that's that the subcommittee has um outlined.

I also think that this really should include more public vetting if we're gonna go beyond uh what's actually noticed here.

Um let me just jump in and say um let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm intrigued by what council member Jensen said.

I also hear what you're saying, council member bowler.

What we could certainly do is a couple of things to be, I think, more constructive.

Let's just make the leases happen by resolution and not that two-part ordinance.

Let's go ahead.

I think I'm seeing consensus on at least 10.

Um, you know, a 10-year or less lease could be by a simple majority.

I get that council member Jensen, you would go farther.

I would go farther with you, but I'm not sure I could still count to four if I do, and then it's kind of, you know, a pyrrhic victory.

Um, so how shall we resolve this people?

I will say I am more in favor of the um, you know, tenure needs four votes, or you know, um, more than ten years.

More than ten years need four votes.

Um I would also, I mean, that is my preference, but I would also be comfortable with three votes.

So, I'm looking, I'm looking for a motion that I can get four votes on.

I'll do a motion.

It's okay.

Um, I would move to a um adopt the resolution, it's drafted in item 7c with the um substitution of the word including for excluding in front of Thailands.

And that would be um section three-10 subparagraph C.

Right.

Okay, second.

Okay.

Um, okay.

Discussion.

Can you read the you want me to read it?

Yeah.

It's what it will say now on that section is no real property of the city, including tide lands shall be leased for a period in excess of ten years or sold except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the council.

And how is that different from it?

Used to say accept tide lines, and it's to including tide lands.

So they switched the titles.

Everything else stayed the same.

And what I was gonna add is that if we can get this on the ballot, if the voters pass it, then we start implementing it, and then maybe two years from now, another measure, you know, the the sky didn't fall in, and and maybe we bring another measure to go a little farther.

You don't always get there in one step.

Sometimes it takes a couple.

Okay.

Okay.

So you made the motion, Councilmember Bowler did and Vice Um Vice Mayor Prior.

Um seconded it.

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

Aye.

And that's four, correct?

And opposed?

Opposed.

Opposed.

And then you arguments again.

You need to do the second piece of the argument.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Um, does my subcommittee want to continue?

Okay.

Um, great.

I just got volunteers.

Yes, you can.

Thank you for volunteering.

Um, I'm sorry, do we need to vote on the subcommittee?

The subject.

Okay, so um I move that the subcommittee for doing the argument in favor and any response to an opposition argument be in the reverse order.

Councilmember Bowler and uh Vice Mayor Pryor.

Uh that's my motion, seconded by councilmember Jensen.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, that's a four.

Absolutely.

Yes, the same deadlines.

The same deadlines.

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay.

Are we good on that one?

Okay.

Um, moving right along.

IPad hasn't frozen.

I probably shouldn't.

Do you want me to start the titles?

And for E F and G.

I'll read them all three if because we can hear them all together.

Yes, we can do those all together.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, aquatics people, your time is coming.

Okay.

Recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with WICMAN construction and amount not to exceed 32,324,200, including contingency for construction of the city aquatic center located at 800 Atlantic Avenue, an adoption related resolution amending the budget.

Um in July 2014, City Council resolution 14955 adopted the Gene Sweeney Open Space Mitigated Park Negative Declaration and mitigation measures in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with section 15164 of the CEQA guidelines and an addendum to the MND, the mitigated negative declaration has been prepared in manner required by an authorized undersequa.

The addendum and conditions of approval for the planning entitlements incorporate and will require compliance with all applicable mitigation measures from the 2014 M and D according to the audit quotics that are project does not raise important issues about potentially significant impacts on the environment that have not been previously discussed in the MD and no further environmental review is required.

7F is also a recommendation for another contract.

It's to amend the agreement with Griffin Structures in the amount of 484,798 and a 5% contingency of 24,750 for a total amendment of 509,548 for a total agreement not to exceed 1,596,584.

And the same CEQA applies to this item and the third contract that's before you is a third amendment to the agreement with ELS architects and an amount not to exceed 171,000 for the City Aquatic Center preliminary conceptual designs, including development for a total contract not to exceed 3,446,306.

Presumably that's longer than the staff report.

Sorry.

No, that was the sequel language.

I wasn't mean to be dismissive at all.

What I was meaning to say is um you know don't feel like you need to say everything you might have in mind.

But welcome you want to introduce yourself.

Yes, thank you, madam mayor.

Uh, and council members, my name is Justin Long.

I'm the recreation and parks director here for the city.

I'm excited here to be here tonight.

Um we're here at a really important stepping stone here for awarding the contract for uh this long-awaited project, and so we'll just get right to it.

Um this is uh the item you're hearing is the WICMAN construction company uh contract award.

So just a little bit to go back into the project goals just so that we can revisit, you know.

This really is a long-anticipated project to increase aquatic facilities for our residents.

Um it also supports our um our CARP plan with reducing CO2, but also uh consistent year-round programming that we do not have currently with our shared facilities with AUSD.

Um, so just get started.

So here's an overview of what the facility looks like, and I also want to just want to let you know of all the kind of components that are still included in this project that we are buying today.

So uh that includes the 30-meter competition pool.

Um it includes the activity pool, uh, mechanical buildings associated with the locker rooms, administration building, small community room.

We also still are looking at adding in the scoreboard system.

There's a large LCD screen that is being provided by AMP, our parking lot, which we discussed previously in the last month or so, and uh bike parking for over 100 bikes still included in this facility and plan.

So, little project history.

This has been going on in discussion since 2019, uh, where uh public meetings were held for design concept uh and basically different sites were evaluated and selected during that time where we ended up at Gene Sweeney in 2023.

Council appropriated 30 million dollars in funding for the project, 15 million from general funds, 15 million from a bond sale.

Um we then started an extensive um public engagement process starting out the park with a joint commission and council meeting to go over different design concepts.

In 2024, we continued that design development and comprehensive site studies, including geotechnical, um hydrology, um, and all the things necessary to determine um uh work that would be required.

In 2025 in July, I brought forward the final design concept and funding plan, and at the time with uh what our cost estimation and the groundwork for geotechnical, the council approved an additional 4.5 million out of the general fund and 1.1 million out of the bond proceeds getting to a project total of 35.5 million.

Um, since once since that approval uh we started the construction document phase, and also which was um critical, we also started at the same time a pre-qualification process for qualifying contractors in advance who've already done work of similar scope, which resulted in seven qualified contractors, as well as the cost estimates that I've done.

We had three professional outside cost estimates done.

The last one was done in September of 2025 that confirmed that the anticipated construction cost was going to be 25.35 million.

And again, that was then reconfirmed by another independent cost estimator that Griffin, our project manager, also verified.

So we had double the cost estimates on that.

So a little bit about the project budget, and we'll go over this relatively quickly since we already just hit some of that.

The 30 million dollars approved.

When I brought to you the design concept back in 2024 for the 30 million, the original estimate was for 42 million.

We then had to do a very extensive and cost engineering evaluation, reducing the size of the building, taking away outdoor pavilion, really making some significant changes to the facility in order to get back to that $35.5 million budget, which we were able to achieve.

But it still included the electrification, the soil conditions, and the groundwater solution.

So, and now just the groundwater, the ground solution is really important to understand because it was an expensive cost.

The facility is engineered to withstand a 7.8 earthquake, so that the facility will be in continuation.

Whereas if we did not do the ground improvement, likely repair would be in the neighborhood of three to four million dollars in order to readjust the entire decking.

So again, to make the project last, we did that, which council approved.

September 25 again, we did the cost estimate to verify that it was at 25.35.

Pre-quall happened, and then we released this spring, and that resulted in three bids from the seven contractors.

Two of the lowest bids were within $60,000 of each other with an outlier of almost 30 million.

What that tells us is that the market in its current condition is telling us what the project was worth.

If all the bids were really widely spread out, we would wonder what is going on.

And so I think that the project was well put together and packaged for the information for the contractors to provide a quality bid.

Some of the things that affected the project since the beginning, and we've talked about is the rising cost of construction as four to six percent a year, as we all know, inflation has been going up higher than normal.

The variable cost of materials, global conflicts, all was taken into consideration, but also the site conditions around the joy uh geotechnical, the groundwater, and the additional one million uh required for the electrification.

I want to note that we are receiving a rebate from AMP to help with some of those costs, but still is this the anticipated cost.

Um the solutions are all included, so uh addressing soil was about three million.

Uh a big thing that we changed from the beginning, this was going to be a design build project, which then turned into a traditional design bid build, which affected the scope of the project manager at the time because they had anticipated only doing uh three days a week being on site, which is now going to require uh five days a week on site, but also the duration is longer than what would happen in the design build process.

And also I want to make sure everyone is aware that the construction contingency here is 10%.

Uh, and so we will be entering into the construction process with a $3 million contingency for the what ifs, the what unknowns, and any particular changes that may or may not have to happen.

But given the extensive work we've already done on the engineering and groundwater, we don't anticipate huge costs in this in this arena.

Uh also want to let you also know that as part of the base bid, we included full soil removal, because this is a site that is controlled by DTSC and regulated that, and so, as part of the base bid, if we have to, it included all the soil removal and replacement.

So if we don't have to remove that said soil, those costs could potentially go down.

So here's sort of a breakdown of what the costs were from our original construction estimate of the 25-5.

One of the things that I just wanted to mention about the ad alternates that we haven't really addressed too much here.

There's about $793 worth here.

Now, these are items that some are required to be included, and then what we're recommending is some of the wants.

So, like for example, the scoreboard and timing system.

This is really critical for being able to run a competition.

That was a relatively substantial part of this.

There is a permanent dewatering system that has to be offered.

We did a series of ad alternates.

One was for a thick and slab pool, which was about a half a million, where the dewatering system addition is only about uh 31,000 because it's just augmenting.

So it's it was a no-brainer in sort of deciding what step we went through.

Um, and then uh going into a couple of the other ones, which is really the there's a radio response time that we have to address where we may or may not have to spend the money based on when the fire department does the radio and emergency testing.

So that may be an additional savings as well.

Um but when we look at the contingency built in at the added cost from what was anticipated, the total construction budget with the three million dollars contingency is now 3283.

And then with the additional soft cost baked in, it all adds up to about 40.5 million from our last budget addition of at the 35.5.

So when we look at this, so um again the funding plan is uh our base project is 35.5.

The additional request now is for 4.9 or almost five for a total project of 40.5 million.

Um, what we're asking you tonight is to approve the funding plan for the aquatic center, approve the Griffin ELS agreements, and then award the contract to Whitman construction, providing the community with greater access.

And uh with that, I'll open it to questions.

Um thank you, Mr.

Long Director Long.

Um council, any clarifying questions?

Um, Councilmember Bowler.

Thank you.

Um Director Long, thank you so much.

Very helpful.

Um, you know, this project involves multiple city councils, many members of this community, and certainly the you know, great efforts of you and your department and those who came before um yesterday presented a supplemental staff memo.

I had asked some questions.

I just want to thank you.

I think that that was really helpful to get those responses.

So the question is, um, you know, the remaining construction and financial risks, you address that, and it does center a bit around the water contamination issues, um, those types of potential issues, and and you indicate that the costs for the filtration would be funded by the project contingency budget if needed.

But I also saw in the presentation there was already three million dollars that was added to this category, right?

So are you saying there's a potential for up to three million more for that problem?

What a potential problem?

I I don't think there's a potential for it to be a three million, but it's an unknown cost at this time that we would have to build towards a three million contingency.

Uh, again, this has to do with groundwater movement and you know, water traveling across land as you dewater an area may attract things that are not on our site into our site, and so we do not know if that's gonna happen, but as part of the dewatering process, we will have to be doing regular water tests to meet the East Bay MUD to use their system in order to dispose of the water to the stormwater system.

So, again, until that process starts happening, as you guys uh know and I've stated before, groundwater here ranges between three and five feet, depending on the time of the year, it's even gone as low as twenty-four inches.

So we've been monitoring the wells for the last two years to get a good idea of what um those water depths are, and so uh there will be substantial dewatering having to happen during construction, and then after the pool is built, that system needs to be left intact for when long-term maintenance is done.

It's really hard to determine what that cost is going to be should we find anything in the water.

So that's that's why it's such an unknown.

But I do believe that the contingency of the three million would be able to handle any of that as it comes up.

So that's that's why I'm I'm sorry, we did put money in, but again, when the contract is bid, this is what the contractor is telling us these items are worth.

Okay, thank you.

Helpful.

Um you also indicated in the supplemental memo memo that the annual operating subsidy is estimated to be 400,000.

And I just would be curious if you have an opinion as how that relates to other comparable facilities, or is that just apples to apples?

You would expect the same.

Is there anything about this particular facility, especially since it's been sort of redesigned over time, right?

Um do you have an opinion about its cost effectiveness year to year once it's in operation with that subsidy?

So in the experience in running pools here in Alameda and understanding the ongoing uh operations, um, I believe that an ongoing subsidy of some kind will be required.

Um I think initially it'll be higher once we get up and running, and then over time it will dissipate as programming changes, as we figure out different ways to maximize that programming.

And so um, but aquatics traditionally in almost any city is not a cost recovery program.

Um we do our best, but this is a subsidiation and it's a service to the community members at large.

Um we specifically try to keep our costs low for our users, especially our seniors and our our kids, in order to try to gain the maximum access that we can, and so with that comes certain limitations in um revenue generation, but I think this facility would be very dynamic, and I think it will have give us the ability since we'll control it all day long and all year long, that that's something that we are not used to currently, and so this is something that will be an added benefit and bonus to the operations.

I just want to be realistic about you know what that operational gap may be as you guys are making this decision.

Yeah, and perhaps that um dynamic nature of it is also um relevant to the my final question, which you indicate that there's the potential to serve 15,000 people annually with 100,000 contact points in the programs, and if you can explain a little bit more that and how this project is um a good fit for Alameda's current needs as opposed to other options that we might have explored.

Sure.

So um uh to one of your first points.

So the aquatic center, what we're estimating uh, these are 15,000 individual users, but we have regular visitors, daily visitors to our existing facilities that we share with the school.

So, but we anticipate that being able to grow our summer programs and grow these other elements that this is a this is a low estimate of what we think the numbers will be, but um I think we will be able to hit you know uh a very high number here.

What is currently available and what we have in our our facilities where we're often having to either close or cancel um classes when pools close.

People don't have an alternative location to go to here in Alameda right now with the Emma Hood pool still under construction.

Um, and then when you look at the only other sources really are pay sources where you either have to go to um uh Harbor Bay Club or uh Aquatech or something like that if you were to want to do that, and so this this really will give the city a resilient and uh long-term uh facility to operate to maximize access for these swim lessons and swimming in general.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for that.

Um Council Member Design.

Just a quick question.

You just mentioned Aquatech and Harbor Bay Club.

Do you know if either of those facilities are experiencing kind of groundwater um issues?

Um I I know that the Harbor Bay Club is concerned of sea level rise, considering their pool is very close to the trail there, and as anyone who is on the trail can can see that.

Um I don't know if they're experiencing any specific groundwater.

A lot of those those pools were installed many years ago.

Whereas Aquatec, I think is a little bit higher up in elevation where it may not have as much, but I've not heard anything specifically from them.

The groundwater issues really refer to for maintenance conditions, is when you have to drain the pool to either retile or reglaze.

There's a lot of hydrostatic pressure that gets put on it.

And you know, imagine a pool being a boat.

It's just made of concrete, it wants to float.

And so in order to take the pressure off, you put in dewatering pumps, and then you can do that.

Just another note these pools are designed with emergency pressure release valves, so that should anything and water pressure build up, the valves just open and allow the groundwater into the pool, and therefore it saves the pool from having any structural damage.

Thank you.

Any clear other clarifying questions?

And Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

Okay, we'll close public comment.

Somebody just raised our hand, right?

As I said, they have none.

Someone just raised their hand.

Yeah, remotely.

Oh, sure.

Alex Fear.

Welcome, Speaker Spear.

Hi.

I was getting to that.

Um I want to thank staff and um, you know, looking at um at you, Director Long and out to the audience and and Miss Stacy out there.

I remember schlepping you guys down to the South Bay of the Peninsula for a field.

And you, City and Assistant City Manager.

Well, was anybody else with us?

Um we had a car full.

But but we w I'll get to I will get back to you, but uh we went down to Mountain View.

Where were we?

We went to the Menlo Park.

And then Menlo Park, and we looked to see how those um those pools, you know, what they were doing, and it's just so amazing, and I'm so excited that we're this close to starting construction on our own.

It's gonna be amazing.

And I'm going to take you up on the swimming lessons.

I'm gonna sign up for with you.

Um, since I find a spare minute, but um thank you for all this.

I'm really excited, and I hope my council members are equally excited so we can move this forward.

Vice Mayor Prior, you had a question.

Sorry.

It's just a design question.

Um, and it didn't uh um assistant city manager, um, uh and I went to Piedmont and they had grass in the common area, which you know on day one looked amazing, but I I thought, oh my gosh, like what's gonna happen in two months after people dripping with chlorine are all over this grass and there's equipment on it.

So do we have grass?

Uh we do not have grass within the perimeter of the facility.

Okay.

Yeah, I just was like, oh, that's not gonna look good.

Anyway, that's it.

That was my question.

All right, and I will just also add that I know there was some additional cost to electrification.

Glad we got the AMP grant, and as you noted in the report, it will also reduce the operating costs.

And it's also the right things to do, the right thing to do.

As I said many times, we're not about to spew greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere with everything we're trying to do to counteract um uh climate change and sea level rise.

So what I'm looking for, and that was all three measures um lumped together.

I think you can do one motion on all three.

Okay, so council, what the city clerk said, we um I would entertain a motion to approve items um 7E F and G, um, in one motion, a motion and a second.

Do I have such a motion and a second?

Councilmember Jensen moves approval, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

That was five, I believe.

That motion passes.

Those three motions passed unanimously.

Thank you so much, everyone.

I look forward to the ribbon cutting.

All right, Madam Clerk, where are we?

Um, I think, yeah, I believe we are at the city manager's report.

All right, item number eight.

City manager communication.

Thank you, Mayor.

With the hour being what it is, I'll be really brief.

I just want to say thank you again to the city council for the opportunity to serve as city manager.

Uh and I really am grateful and humbled by the opportunity to be back here and in this role uh partner with the organization and the community.

People have been so welcoming in my first few days.

Um I also just want to.

Well, maybe I'll conclude it there for this evening.

It is late.

I did want to say one other thing.

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who was involved in the parade last weekend.

It was just such an amazing event, and um I know it doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen.

So there's just a there was a lot of uh community energy.

I know Justin's still here and uh still standing public safety folks and you all for for supporting it.

Uh it is a it's it's both an investment and a hugely rewarding day.

So thank you for for that and again for the opportunity, and I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you.

Thank you and welcome aboard.

Um Madam Clerk, I'm assuming the oral communication agenda items correct.

Okay.

Then we move to item 10.

We have no council referrals.

Um, do we know and council communications?

Anybody want to say something briefly?

I can.

I was just gonna say I attended the Sand Castle competition.

That was great.

It was the first time I ever did that.

You were got to be a judge.

That was so great.

Um, and then I did go to the Unity Festival, which was really fun, and the Juneteenth celebration out at South Shore.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Let me if I could move on to item 11A.

I was gonna tell you a little bit about each nominee, but you would rather get out of here.

So let me just tell you, I've been doing lots of interviews, and we have amazing um residents who volunteer who apply for these positions.

So for the civil service board, and again, I'm just announcing my nominations for the council for the public at our next council meeting on the 21st.

These items will come to the council near the top of the agenda, so um our nominees don't have to wait through a long meeting, but um, these are the ones I've interviewed and selected so far.

So for civil service board, um our incumbent Timothy Irwin is has reapplied and been reappointed and nominated by me and um Matthew Hada is our other um our other nominee, and then on the historic advisory board, um, one of our incumbents, Arthur Brito happens to be a landscape architect, he would like to serve another term.

I'm nominating him.

Another um member who is up for um is an incumbent, he is a contractor, Hank Hernandez, and um then a new member, and that's Rachel Lee.

And um again, you'll meet them uh either on screen or in person next time for the housing authority board of commissioners.

I um I haven't finished all of the um there's still another position, four terms.

I've I've nominated three.

I'm we've got some more applications to um people to interview, but I and on this board, and this is pursuant to HUD regulations, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

There have to be two um tenant representatives on a housing authority board of commissioners.

One's a tenant tenant and the other needs to be a senior.

I think these are both seniors, but that's fine too.

Um, one of them, incumbent tenant coming back as Thelma Decoy.

She's amazing.

Tenants serve two years as opposed to four for non-tenant representatives, and then Gerald, he goes by Jerry Johnson is another senior tenant.

Uh Ms.

Decoy lives in Independence Plaza, and uh Mr.

Johnson lives at Rosefield Village, so it's kind of nice that we have two different um housing units covered, and then Eric Husby is a current um member, uh a non-resident member.

He's also an immigration attorney, which is a wonderful um specialty to have right now with lots going on at the federal level that can be kind of um challenging with immigrants and whatnot.

And then for the library board, I reappointed the incumbent to Sean Amara Suri Wardena.

Um on the Recreation parks commission.

We had three openings, three full terms I reappointed the happens to be the chair now incumbent Wesley Rattes and also appointed Eric Bell and Rhonda Sorensen so again look forward to meeting them all at the next council meeting and then finally to adjourn the meeting on a sad note but to recognize three terrific individuals um in the month of June we lost some folks who were very near and dear to this city um one was our former and beloved HR director Nancy Bronstein she passed away on June 13th and um I think most of us knew and worked with um with Nancy hard looking at her picture her beautiful picture um and we sent our condolences to her family somewhat coincidentally Nancy has a first cousin who is on the city council in Manhattan Beach Southern California we say we serve on the same policy committee of the League of California cities so I had you know we'd been in communication and I'll see him um soon the next um person wonderful person we lost was Jim Franz and um many of you knew and worked with Jim I remember him as being the head of the Red Cross in Alameda for many years but he also served on the SSHRB as a shrub member staff member just yeah staff he and oh he was also a very talented jazz musician and just so giving of his time and his talent and he is survived by his um his wife Jan and and children too I believe and then Judith Ann Lynch who also passed away in um in the last month in June she was I didn't realize she had two master's degrees from UC Berkeley in urban planning and journalism.

I knew her oh my goodness she taught Victorian architecture at Stanford University in San Francisco State that I didn't know but she was very active here in the Mastic Senior Center but also in the historic um the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society I think she played Queen Victoria in various um settings and would sometimes speak to us and she was just delightful and so you know I just want to recognize and remember these people who just gave of themselves their time and their talent and we are better for having known them and again we send our condolences to their family and friends and loved ones.

So keep them in your hearts and with that this meeting is adjourned.

Lots of good work accomplished tonight council staff thank you so much travel home safely everyone see you soon good night