City Council - Regular Meeting

OK, everyone. Are we ready in the balcony? Balcony is always ready, even if the rest of us aren't. We get our act together. OK, well, it is 5 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? Here. Pryor? Here. Mayor, is he ash capped? Here. Three present. And hopefully, Dase Hug and Jensen will be here.

OK, have we heard from them? No. OK, 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 Abbey. 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 5 o'clock meeting to reiterate 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 the public park. This is a private use. It's a large development, and there is concern about this area of the city being more appropriate for development that is nature-based or could accommodate sea level rise. I've heard from parents who would like to see more playing fields and that sort of thing in that location, and so we felt as though there would be potential for other parts of Alameda Point to accommodate a large commercial enterprise like this. And so those were our comments on that closed session item. Thank you.

Thank you. 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 announce.

Item 3A is conference of the real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is a portion of Alameda Point Enterprise Park boarded by West Hornet Avenue, the San Francisco Bay, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, and the Ensenal Boat Launch. City negotiators are the assistant city manager, the recreation park director, the recreation park assistant director, the deputy city attorney. The negotiating parties are the City of Alameda and Neptune Beef Surf Club development partners. Under negotiation is price and terms. 3B is conference with legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section 549569A. The case name is Miller v. City of Alameda et al. Superior Court of the County of Alameda. Case number 24CV097206.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm so glad I don't have to transcribe you when you're talking. 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 391 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 PM this same evening. Thanks, everyone. Let's go into closed session.

Thank you.

It's great candidates.

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 7, 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 action taken in closed session.

Thank you. Regarding 3A, which was a conference with real property negotiators, regarding Surf Park, staff provided information to the city council. The council directed staff to schedule a community workshop with the city council in the fall of 2026, including but not limited to exploring and considering the merits of a surf park 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. And that one carried by unanimous voice vote. Sorry about that. And then regarding 3B, which was a litigation case with Miller, staff provided information and counsel provided direction also unanimously by Five Eyes.

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. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Jensen. OK. And then we will move on to roll call. Madam Clerk?

Council Members Buller? Here. Desaad? Here. Jensen?

She's here. Council Member Jensen?

Pryor? Here. Mayor Eze Ashcroft? I'm here. Five present.

All right. Thank you. We're just moving furniture. It's all good. Madam Clerk, are there any agenda changes?

Yes, there is. Item 7D, as in dog, which was a charter amendment related to the auditor and treasurer, has been withdrawn and will be heard on July 21st instead. And then also, I think, 3A, which was a presentation, that one's going to come back on a different day, too.

All right, wonderful. And we don't have any proclamations.

Madam Mayor, a point of order. I have actually want to suggest two agenda changes. And what would that be? The first one, as I understand it, I've spoken to the city clerk, and I understand the first one that I will make is will require, both of these will require a vote by council. But the first one is a supermajority vote. The first I move that item 5D be pulled and heard as the first regular agenda item. And what else? I believe that these motions 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.

OK, 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 5D to be heard as the first regular agenda item. And the other one is to continue item 7B and 7C to the July 21 regular agenda.

OK, well, I will express strong opposition to moving 7C and 7D to the next council meeting, the reason being July 21 is the last council meeting before we go on break. And it's already pretty crowded. And this also, city attorney can maybe explain some of the ramifications for the 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.

Sure, Madam Mayor. So that is the last meeting for the city council to place ballot measures before the voters for this election. And so if the council is considering ballot measures in that meeting, 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 if there are significant changes.

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 was just continued. Right.

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

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

OK, so there's been a motion. What is it again?

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

OK, but let's go back to the two that you want continued. Are you withdrawing that?

No, I'm making two motions. The first motion is to move item 5D and pull item 5D and hear item 5D as the first regular agenda item.

And I might be willing to support that. And just help me understand the reason for your request to continue the other two.

Because 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, 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 the agenda was published about 10 days ago. So I would understand that one of the items has been moved to July 21. And I think that's appropriate. And I think that both of the other charter reform items should also be moved to July 21, since that will give the public plenty of time get the limited, look at the limited agenda report and perhaps ask questions if they have any of the charter subcommittee.

You know, we've had a charter subcommittee that I named in open session for this very purpose since. Madam Clerk, do you remember when that was?

The first one, the initial one? Well, the one that the Vice Mayor and I are.

Oh, I don't have that date. But I mean earlier this year, right?

That was in open session, I understand. I never looked for it.

OK, I'm so sorry you weren't aware of it before this evening. OK, well, I, again, for all the reasons previously stated, I will not be seconding or supporting. Let's take the first item. And the reason for that request is what?

Again, 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 a later agenda item that we will be discussing which is a bond measure, a 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 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.

OK. And then you do understand that if we move this consent calendar item to be heard first before item 7A, we will still get the three minutes apiece that council has allocated to comment on consent calendar items, correct?

If it is pulled 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?

Yeah, five.

Okay.

Because you have three minutes during the whole consent discussion of everything, and then the items that gets pulled, you learn it. Okay, thank you for that reminder. Yeah, thank you.

Okay. Okay, well, let's see. And we need, what do we need to do that?

Four votes. That's a super majority because you're amending the rules or doing a break.

OK. I mean, that one I can live with. The others, no. But you've made the motion. Anybody seconds that?

I'm sorry. This is just for, was it 5G? D. D as in dog. 5D, sorry.

This is the facility's plan to pull it from the, OK. All right. And we've had a motion by Council Member Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. OK, that one we will do. OK, the next motion, I really would not encourage my colleagues to support that because staff is already slammed at this point before we go on break. But make that motion if you wish.

I move to continue item 7B and 7C to join the other charter reform item, which was 7D on the July 21 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 the subcommittee, the Charter Reform Subcommittee, which is Vice Mayor Pryor and myself, agreed to continue that particular charter amendment motion is that because one of the individuals involved has a doggy who's very sick and is going to be put down. soon and just didn't have the wherewithal to appear. And that seemed like a pretty good humanitarian reason for anyone who's been a dog owner, and I have. But that was unique. So anyway, you're probably wondering what's going on behind the scenes. So that was the explanation. OK. Well, thank you for that.

And I did not recognize that. I did know that one of the individuals that would have been affected by that charter item, charter amendment, did have a death in his family of this pub. And that's some reason for him not to be here, of course. Regardless, I still, even if that had not been the case, I still don't believe that there has been sufficient time to review or get information about these substantial and significant charter reform issues. I think it's coming too soon. And since the July 21 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 30 minutes of discussion. 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.

There's a motion. Is there a second? Hearing none, the motion dies for lack of a second. All right. We will move on. All right. Let's see. Where are we, Madam Clerk? Is this oral communication, non-agenda item? Yes. All right. So 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 slides. ground rules for the conduct of a city council meeting, which is to say that this is a business meeting. It is not theater. It's not a sporting event. We've all been watching FIFA games recently, World Cup games lately. But we are here to do the business of this city. And some substantial business is going to be transacted tonight. So what we ask for just the respect of everyone and for a smooth meeting transaction is that 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 interfere with anyone else's view. And we also ask that. 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 in doing that, we allow everyone to speak. 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, Madam Clerk, do we have speakers under oral communication, non-agenda items?

We do. Ryan Klausneiser? Sorry. Oh, welcome.

Hello, hello.

Madam Mayor? very brief. I'm just, 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 see it as a community event. 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 Jean 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 for friendship and fellowship. So again, thank you all for having me tonight, and I welcome you all to our club meetings.

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

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.

Oh, OK. With that, we will close public comment, 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, no. OK. And then council members may speak for up to three minutes on consent calendar items. So first of all, are there any items other than 5D, as in dog, that we voted on? Are there any other items council wants to pull from the consent calendar? Okay. Then does council have any questions on any of the items that are remaining on the consent calendar?

I have a recusal, if I may.

Thank you. Item 5K, I would recuse myself from that vote because I have a financial interest in some residential rental property in Alameda.

Oh, right. This is the final passage of an ordinance we heard before. But he can stay in the chambers, right? Don't go away. Okay.

I have a question about one of the items. Yes, ma'am.

Which item? And we'll get a staff person up to answer it.

Thank you. It's on item five. Sorry. Five. Thank you. 5G. No, not 5I.

5G, excuse me. 5G is, sure, adoption. OK. 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 with regard to the adoption of a resolution modifying the appointee salary schedule to increase the salary range of the city manager position by 7% and the city attorney by 7%. And my question 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 adjusts the salary range to maintain an adequate spread for future contracted increases.

Thank you.

And that's your only question? All right. Thank you, Ms. White. OK. No other council questions. Madam Clerk, did you want to make any announcements?

Yes, please. Before putting 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 $382,902. 5G increases both the city attorney and city manager salaries by 7% effective July 12, 2026, resulting in a salary range of $317,584 to $412,499 for the city manager and $321,000 022 to 392.03 for the city attorney. 5H increases the city clerk's salary, scheduled by a 14-point price, 85% plus a 1% cost of living adjustment, effective July 12, 2026, resulting in a salary of $268,174. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And then did I call for public comment? Now is it. OK. So do we have any public comment on the consent calendar? OK, let's have it.

We have Anil Babar.

In remote? Remote. Remote. OK. Speaker Babar, welcome.

Thank you, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Anil Babar with the California Apartment Association. CA 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 on rubs in San Jose seven years ago, we have documented increases of up to 40% 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 is exactly the opposite of what California should be encouraging, which is anything that increases consumption of our natural resources during a time of drought 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's deadlines are rigid and could harm owners and residents if 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 CAVE 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 reject the banner 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 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.

Do we have further public comments? One more. Yes. Jay Garfinkel. Oh, now two more. So Jay Garfinkel's next.

Welcome, Speaker Garfinkel.

Hi. Good evening. I have one general concern about, I think it's D, no, the ones that relate to salary. It's like D, E, no, F, G, H, and I, I think it is. My concern is that Staff is telling us that we need to set up a $300 million loan to pay for infrastructure. We've also heard that the city is facing increasing debt related to pensions and health programs. So at a time that we are in such need, and at a time when many residents of Alameda are experiencing financial difficulties, 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 6% raises every year in addition to cost of living increases. I don't know very many people here in Alameda are getting 6% increases every year for doing essentially the same work. I think that we just should be more prudent in how we allocate our funds. Also, I'm not clear who sets these compensation packages. I don't know if the public is actually involved. They appear to be asking, you shall receive. One of the big problems in the state, as well as the city, is that city employee unions exert a tremendous influence over various budgetary items, including their own compensation. So I would like to see this whole compensation situation be open for more public scrutiny. I think this is an example of why we need to keep an auditor and city treasurer as elected positions. I'm not questioning whether these compensation packages are appropriate. I'm questioning the process, especially in light of the general economic situation in Alameda. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Toni 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 renters cannot control what they pay for the utilities, there's very little incentive for them to economize and to save water in times of drought or economize for electricity and gas when there is a heavy burden on the grid systems. So I would like to see this control being given back to the renters so they can be more involved in the city's welfare and be more in charge of their own finances. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Laura Woodard.

Welcome Speaker Woodard.

Good evening. 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. 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. This is mostly invisible to middle income residents of Alameda. tenants deserve stability i have separate utility meters so i'm not currently affected by the ratio utility billing ban but i support it and i ask you to finalize the change this is about alameda's rent ordinance which makes it clear that additional charges including utilities are rent We had this debate around capital improvement plans, that that was a pass-through. We make these distinctions. Tenants are not saying 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 housing insecurity, we are always expected to compromise with landlord interests as though it's an even playing field. I noticed a real estate lobby rep gave public comment at the first reading. Just like RUBS, having a capital improvement plan option at all is a rent control workaround. The one-time rent increase allowance for landlords seems like fair compensation for landlords who choose not to convert to separate meters. So I don't think the tenants should have to pay for that conversion for landlords choosing that route on any size property, especially the largest corporate owned properties. Being on a small property, I could receive what I consider an unfair or CIP pass through for the full cost of other types of building improvements. So I 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? That was our last speaker. OK. With that, we will close public comment on the consent calendar. And are there any other comments from the council?

I actually have a comment. Thank you.

Yes, Councilmember Jensen.

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

That's required by the Brown Act, is what I thought.

But when you introduced it, you said that there was that increase in compensation for these positions.

Right. I announced it.

And I just want to clarify that the positions are not, well, one position in 5F is increasing. Excuse me. And one position in 5H is increasing, but 5G is a range. So I want to be really clear.

Who wants to go first? I see the city attorney. Let's start with them.

I said the salary, and I announced the range. I said the salary, and I announced the whole range. OK, thank you.

And city attorney, Shan, did you want to add anything?

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

Thank you.

OK, are we good? OK, I am looking for understanding that Councilmember Buller 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 consent calendar with those modifications.

So moved.

It's been moved by Vice Mayor Pryor, seconded by Council Member Boehler. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Aye. Council Member Daszak?

I'll be a no on 5K.

OK.

But aye on everything else.

OK. Got that, Madam Clerk? Of course she does. All right. So then we will move on to the regular agenda. And I understand that our assistant city manager, Amy Wooldridge, is going to provide an overview of item 5D as in dog about the facilities plan. So you want to do it from there? That's fine. Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you. Oh, we've got slides.

We have just two short slides. I will keep it brief. So the city facilities plan, that's the report, focuses on... Oh, I can't control it. I was tapping down like I could control it on my laptop. So what we did is we reviewed we worked with RM and we were focused on some key specific facilities 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. plus they have many of them have increasing demand for services and in the case of the animal shelter significant impacts on residential developments nearby so sorry back to the recommendations for a minute thank you so what you have in front of you I'm not going to list through all of them but basically we have recommendations in the plan For some of the fire stations, for a new station for Fire Station 5 at a site to be – there's recommendations in there on which location at Alameda Point and a few different options, a couple remodels for fire stations, and for Fire Station 1 to expand into the existing admin area, and that admin – Chief Luby and team have already been working on what's come before this council to move admin into a leased area at Marina Village, so already trying to move it in that direction. Also for fleet services, the report recommends combining several facilities into a site at Alameda Point for efficiency. 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 animal shelter and fleet 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. Next slide, please. So these are the costs before you. They total approximately $342.4 million. That's based on 2029 construction costs. So basically we did included cost escalation, knowing it takes time to identify funding sources, go through design, feasibility, technical studies, all of that. And it also does include soft costs. So these numbers before you are realistic numbers that have been cross-checked by professional cost estimators, MAC5. 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 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 major project funding for these large capital projects. And that concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Assistant City Manager Wooldridge. Are there any clarifying questions from the council before we see if there's any public comment on this item? Just really clear.

Vice Mayor Pryor? Sorry. Sorry. It wasn't on the slide, but you had said the total is $342 million. Is that correct? Correct. Okay.

Any other clarifying questions, Council Member Jensen?

Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for pulling this. I wanted to focus on the areas, some of the ones that you listed. Can you just explain the, well, 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, in terms of the facility. But is that still an issue, given that the fire administration has been leasing a site?

So what you're referring to is 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 lower, fire admin got Bs and Cs. Those were based on the, those letter grades were, and analysis was based on their existing site adjacent to Fire Station 1, 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 that is rated, as you point out, as a B, I think. But it's no longer an issue today for now, because there is a leased site.

Once 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 provide any more detailed information.

And then, so I also wanted to highlight and ask about the status of the other sites. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight 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...

He's available if you have any additional questions.

Probably less conversant about the animal shelter. But did you have any specific questions?

Yes, I did. 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 potential bond revenues. It seems to be in very, very poor condition according to this report, but yet there's no program or plan or information about improvements.

Who would like to take that?

You know what?

Actually, I'm going to 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, OK, so we'll dispense with that rule about no applause. But I always say applaud in your heart. But anyway, 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. Did you say, are you pointing to the assistants? Are you going to start with this?

I will maybe just contextualize this part of the conversation. It's almost a two-parter tonight, and I think that Councilmember Jensen raised a great point, which is that we have this facilities analysis that we've done, but the infrastructure bond and some of the conversations that the council had last year, including the four workshops, really speak to the breadth and scope of the needs 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 of facilities that the city uses to deliver services to the community. But there are a lot more pieces of our infrastructure, including things like our fleet 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, It is always a challenge to meet all of the needs that we we know we're facing so what you'll see later this evening is a recommendation we do have 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 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 climate adaptation is another. And then making sure that our streets are in good condition, repairing potholes is another. We're juggling a lot. We're doing more with less. And did you want to add on, Assistant City Manager?

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to add that we are continuing to invest through our capital improvement program 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's not large enough for the current uses. There's a lot of reasons behind that. 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 with fleet and animal shelter in the Reckon Park Corp yard So that's a very major project that really would require infrastructure bond or some other significant capital funding to move forward.

I

Thank you. And I have one more question. With regard to page 56, the implementation strategy, I appreciate the clarity about about where the animal shelter and the corporate yard fit in to any potential improvements. On page 56 talks about the implementation strategies, the interim one, interim two, phase one, phase two, phase three. So my question is regarding the implementation strategy for potential use of either bond funds or CIP funds. 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 park yard. Can you just tell me, is the interim modular restrooms, lockers, and security lights, is that already being put in place?

It is not yet 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 1. So is it correct to say that Fire Station 1, 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 strategy is something that will be an iterative process. And so we will be, as we're identifying funds, we'll be implementing this. We may likely, it'll be challenging to stay on the exact timeline of it. So both with modular recreation and park courtyard, that's something we want to start looking at and how we can fund that. 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 facilities that are needed at fire station one and similar fire station five which needs remodeling that was intended to be somewhat around the similar time because that seemed more in reach from a financial perspective than some of the larger projects

Sure. And I see on here it's about $14 million starting in 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 you're forming a thought. I do.

You want to share something? Yeah. I think there's the plan, and then there's building it into our capital improvement plan. And this plan is relatively new. It's hitting a lot of people's desks and getting more attention as the weeks go on here. So to Assistant City Manager Woldrich's point earlier, it's something that we're going to have to start to program into our CIP. now identified needs, which helps us get after funding either through grants or other opportunities, our CIP dollars are not going to go far enough to keep us on pace 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, and 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 part. And look where it led. Thank you.

And I know Chief Lubbe is here this evening. And because we're talking about the facilities plan, and you had asked what is going to happen in Fire Station 1, there is background information and additional information about that. And it really has to do with modernizing our fire stations in a way that makes them safer for our employees, our firefighters, and also more efficient. And so I don't know, Chief Lubbe, if you'd like to add or if you have more that you'd like to add tonight about this current condition of fire stations across the community.

If you want to start with the one that's 150 years old or wherever. Welcome, Chief Lubbe. You want to go ahead and introduce yourself.

Thank you, Nick Lubbe, Fire Chief. Good evening, Mayor and council members. Can I answer, can I speak to the fire admin real quick first? You sure can. So the fire admin, the lease for, to move fire admin, there was an opportunity, as you know, we presented to council, there was an opportunity at significantly below market value to make that move. And we took the opportunity as I said, get the lease for five years at a very low rate for for that with the thought that that has to be vacated to what the city manager referred to and for station one station one is small small in size does not meet modern-day standards for decontamination for the workforce and decontamination corridors storage issues 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 is rated B So structurally the bones of the building are okay and good, that that would be the least expensive and most easy 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 council and city manager and 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 current introductory rate. That's an assumption. So there'll have to be a decision made. Is it better to build? If there is a building of Station 5 or a building of a new train center, to add a new fire admin building for a long-term cost-benefit analysis needs to be done. Leasing versus actually building the building and moving into it. the city manager Bowden did allude to we do have station 2 which is 105 years old now we just went through a situation with mold in the building. We did an investigation. Luckily, the report came back favorable for our employees. But it's an old building that needs to be either replaced or remodeled. We decided remodeling because, again, the cost of replacing it and also trying to build a Station 5 was just becomes cost prohibitive with modern, you know, current construction costs. Station 1, Station 2, Station 4 all need seismic updates to meet modern essential building standards to make sure that they stay standing and operational and functional when the next earthquake happens.

And you know, I think I transposed numbers. It wasn't that the station was 150 years old, but Alameda Fire Department is 150 years old this August. In fact, Chief Lubbe was the grand marshal of our 4th of July parade, he and the members of AFD. But 105 is still pretty. You're right, old age. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Further questions, Council Member Jensen or anyone else?

Chief, with regard to the Station 2, I see on the Facility Master Plan that that Station 2 remodel would take place in 2033. So I hope that you've been informed and supportive of this plan. I think if there is these major problems, I would have some concern that waiting for seven years might be might be not appropriate because if the problems at the site are, as you say,

100% correct councilmember Jensen 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 was the best they could do with the information they had Obviously knowing that there is funding constraints to be able to facilitate it the challenge also with station two Part of the remodel as presented with RRM is one of the current existing apparatus, truck two there, will have to move to 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. And also it's just a very small building to be housing three apparatus. If you follow the plan, Station 5, either interim or permanent, needs to be built so we can relocate Station 2 so then we can relocate Truck 2 so then we can do the remodel for Station 2.

Well, then I'll just close and point out that the remodel or any other construction in Interim 2, even beginning with Station 5, would not be happening according to this report until the earliest 2029. Just keep that in mind, I guess, as you look at all your facilities and the health of all of the officers, 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 risk, according to the report, until 2031 to 2033. That's of concern, I guess, to me. And this does include, by the way, bond revenue. That is laid out clearly when and how the bond revenue would be used for these facilities.

Yeah, it ultimately comes down to the funding to be able to facilitate the grand scale. I will say that Public Works does a very good job of maintaining and addressing issues as they do come up with fixes as best they can using CIP and other operational funding case by case basis.

Thank you. Any further questions for the fire chief? OK. 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 hand's still up? Do we have any other remote speakers, Madam Clerk? No.

We don't have any other speakers at all.

OK. Speaker Garfinkel, we can't hear you.

Oh, wait. Sorry. I was trying to get his attention by moving him again, but.

Maybe.

OK. He's re-raised his hand. Let's try again.

OK.

There.

I think he's. Hi. Hi.

Sorry. um i have a question about the accumulation of funds uh the assistant city manager said that 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 periodically over the coming years. Presenting the 21 million dollars now all at once seems unnecessary. These projects will be carried out over the years. I'm not clear why none of these were done previously and why say the improvements of the fire stations can't be less drastic than what's proposed thank you

Thank you. And just for anyone who's listening, this is public comment, not Q&A. But do we have further public comment?

That was it.

OK. With that, I will close public comment on item 5, Diaz and Dodd. And this was a recommendation to accept the Alameda 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? Oh, wait.

Okay, I miss you questions 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 dollars 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 to be funded through bond, Fire Station 5 at $54.6 to be funded through bond, Fire Station 2, $11.5 funded by bond, and Fire Training Center, $61.6 million. The implementation plan putting that also as funded through bond. It seems to me that that adds up to a commitment of basically $158 million of the total of the $300 million towards the fire station, fire outfit. And again, we thank them for 150 years of saving residents of the city of Alameda. Is that correct?

KATHLEEN MURPHY- Assistant, who wants to go first? I'll always defer to the city manager. But Assistant City Manager has been probably working on this longer. So do you want to start?

Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I would start with that this plan is not policy. This plan is really a framework that council is providing. 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. And we lay out a plan, just like you heard from Chief Luby, it We tried to be thoughtful about being as cost effective as possible. And so if we can move fire admins, we can clear space there. And what he was talking about at Fire Station 2 and building Fire Station 5 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 a specific order of the projects or anything like that. That will come before council. on a project-by-project basis and as part of the annual budget.

OK. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Mayor, if I might just add. Of course. Same here, Jim. I think this is tough because 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. The bond itself and the kinds of projects, there's a resolution with an attachment that creates the categories that we're focused on for that effort. While there are fire facilities included, as I mentioned earlier, we're responsible for a whole wide range of things as the City of Alameda and things like adaptation projects as well as just road funding and basic accessibility requirements. There's just been a lot of constraints put on our revenue sources and our funding sources and also our needs continue to go up. It's tough because I think everybody's ready to get into the bond conversation, but this is important context relative to our facilities.

Thank you for that. Council Member Daszak, is that your hand up?

Yeah, I just want to make a comment.

OK, Council Member Daszak.

The comment I'd like to make is, in my view, this is the exact kind of clear identification of how much money is being slotted for what particular type of project. So I actually appreciate this item because of its clarity. I certainly have my views about the next item, but we can get to that. But I appreciate how it's very specific. It doesn't just say, oh, the fire department is going to get $158 million. Instead, this clearly delineates what are the different type of specific projects that, should it pass, bond fund proceeds could go towards. And I mention that for the reasons that I'll talk about later.

OK, you want to make a comment? Come on up, Chief Lubbe. No, it's fine.

Is that helpful with a little framing for Councilmember Daszak? From a fire department perspective, the costs you are seeing there, we all realize are big numbers. And when we did the workshop and presented this plan, I took away a very clear message. You're not getting everything. We can't get everything. We can't afford everything. There's plenty of things that we have to do throughout the city. So I just wanted to share. The pricing you see in there when we work through RRM was Everything, the perfect world, shall we say. And I'll give you one quick example. Station 5, 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 essential building standards. We get to a point where we can start doing design work. I feel pretty confident in some of these projects. We can try to bring the funding, the pricing down on them with some creative measures and some value engineering. That's the word I learned, the value engineering. So I just wanted to make sure that the prices, 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, the fire related facilities do not are shared citywide. Thank you.

Thank you. OK. If there are no further council comments, I am looking for a motion to accept this Alameda City Facilities Plan, et cetera, et cetera. Motion and second, please.

Motion. Second.

Second. It's going to be one of those nights. Council Member Bowler 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 7A. And I do believe this is a really large, meaty, consequential item. And the presenters have asked for 20 minutes for the presentation. Is that enough, presenters, 20 minutes? OK. So what I need before we start is 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 Pryor moves and Council Member Bowler seconds. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Okay, it carries. Good evening. Welcome. I want to introduce yourself.

good evening madam mayor city council members my name is Danielle Miller and 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 we have Alameda has over $800 million in infrastructure needs that grow up more expensive every year that they go unaddressed. Everything from aging facilities that we just heard about to shoreline protection, potholes, street paving. And Alameda is responsible for a wide range of important community infrastructure and services. 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, 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 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, 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 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 Hauser. 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 Bailiff 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 7. 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 infrastructure bond to fund your highest priority needs here in the city. But this work has been happening for many months now. We always recommend starting with testing the feasibility of a measure with good scientific voter research. You're going to hear about that in a few minutes from Kurt Balow 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. 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 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, 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 of your voter opinion research.

Thank you, and welcome.

All right. Thank you, Jeremy, and mayor and members of the council. Kurt Balow 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, 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-aged 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 the main thing here is 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. So for questions asked with a full sample, there's a 5% margin of sampling error. And there were some places where we did some what we called split sampling, where half of the survey respondents got a different version 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 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 meet them where they are. And obviously, this year alone, there's been lots of changes in voter sentiment. This is the loudest 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 gave an option to say mixed. So usually there's three points to the scale, but here we got four. The main thing here is that pre-pandemic, a 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 a sort of dip i'm looking just 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 Impressions of city government here. We asked this blue bar for 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 survey respondents offered approval of 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. And so looking at this, this is a question that we've asked similarly in the past in versions of this. But what are the things that you consider to be most pressing problems in the city? Present these in random order. And many of these things are not things that you have control over as a city or you have modest 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 there might 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 talk about it broadly or about housing, are the top concerns for voters here in the city. Two thirds, roughly, or more feel like those are extremely very serious problems. Right below that dashed line, we have a variety of other items. And there's different degrees of intensity here. But climate change, sea level rise, federal budget cuts, we've seen that actually an issue across the state being a little concern. Roughly half of voters feel strongly about those. Looking at other items here related to the bond, 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. And about third, I think that's an extremely very serious problem. Not a big number, not a symbol 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 the italicized language is the language that was read on the phone, 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 improve public infrastructure in the city. And we've seen a pretty tight correlation historically with percentage that 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 2 thirds who feel like there's an appreciable need for funding. We're 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 people put their heads, thinking caps on heads together to come up with hypothetical ballot language here for this $3 million 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 wove through the different ways the funds could be spent, preparing for emergencies, keeping states safe, maintaining response to fire, and a few other items. And then we asked respondents, either on the phone or online, we took 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 or probably yes. And then for someone who's on the fence initially, do you have a lean one way or another? Because you catch people months in advance of something they haven't considered that maybe their 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. We'll get to that in a second here. Only one in 10 were really undecided, truly asked twice. Pretty much nine out of 10 have a leaning as of right now. We asked, the language was a little bit different because we learned something from the language. And you've had, as Danielle noted, all this community outreach since the last time we conducted the survey to inform the ballot language here. So 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. I'm putting my upholstered hat on. That's margin of error difference. 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 certainly more intensity. And so what might voters spend? I know there's been a lot of conversation about this exhaustive list. What is it, $800 million, $900 million of infrastructure needs for the city? This is a – we looked through an expansive list of those different spending priorities in the 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 if funds from a bond measure could be spent in this manner? This helps us better align voter priorities with – a potential way a bond measure could be crafted. 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 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. You'll also see a few things maybe more specific about emergency response and fire in these sort of 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. The second slide here in the series, step two of them here, these are all things that are still seen as at least somewhat important by large majorities, but the intensity starts to get a little smaller. Those darker blue bars get a little smaller. I'm going to go back one slide. All right, we're in the mid-30s up to 40, and now we're in, OK, kind of the mid-20s range. And some of these are more preventing flooding on city streets. It was a little bit different from flooding in the tubes, for example. Some of the financial elements here, investing now before costs increase, being able to leverage matching funds, not unimportant. They just weren't as 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. 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 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 going to be a community dialogue. 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 2 thirds at 66%. When we came back in and said it's going to cost too much, 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 2 thirds level. And the other thing we're very close to here is 40% definitely yes is what we're sort of shooting for for a 2 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, it 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 going to cost too much. And support went down all the way to 51. This time the dynamic's a little bit different. We went up to 66 after presenting how the money would be spent. Now that's probably a tighter alignment with the spending priorities in this survey versus that first survey when we were casting a wider net. 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 were pretty similar. So quick conclusion on my side here is it feels like there's a little more optimism than there has been in the last couple of years. And some of the looking forward in the city, the right direction numbers are ticking up after sort dropping down and pandemic. I'm not going to 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. Now, that being said, There's been a little improvement from the 2025 survey. The need went up a little smidge, too, particularly on the intensity side there. 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 I heard all about this in Danielle's presentation, and maybe some of the opinions have changed a little bit, Maybe the community is becoming more amenable to a measure. This could be an incremental step in that sort of positive transition there. But that doesn't mean it's not going to be challenging. And obviously, you really want to make sure that this aligns with voter priorities about public safety issues, public safety during national disasters, and things of that nature. So it feels like an incremental step in the right direction. And we have a good sense of what voters would prioritize for a bond. Okay, I think that's the end of my section.

Thanks, Kurt, and I'll be quick, Danielle, so you can get your last slide in, too. I just wanted to share a few conclusions from my end as well, having been involved in this process from the outset. 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 public agencies have dropped in support because of the state of the economy and cost of living. We didn't. We actually increased. 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 especially with the context of knowing the types of independent campaigns that have been run here in the city in the past 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 and we know that you know the list of needs is much longer than 300 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.

No, it's OK. I'll just conclude that this is staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution and introduce an ordinance to place the $300 million 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. All right. So are there any clarifying questions from counsel before we go to our public comments? Clarifying questions. I have a question. Councilmember DASAG.

Yes on page PDF 6 of 30 survey methodology There was a total interviews of 420 and that broke down into telephone interviews and online interviews Subsequently, on page 13 of 30, there is the bar chart showing the blue bar charts, dark blue, royal blue, light blue. The blue bar charts amount to 62% total yes. Is there any significant difference between those who had answered via telephone versus those who had answered via online interviews? Yes, if there is or not.

Yeah. Is that mic on here? Yeah, the difference was very minor in those modes. And I also cautioned looking at the distinction between modes, because the demographics of those who respond in those two modes are not identical. So we don't weight the same number of men, women, Democrats, voters over 50, under 50 for each mode, because

Yeah, I'm just interested in the- Don't talk over the speaker. Let him finish, and then you speak. Please continue.

So there was not much of a distinction between the two there. We had other distinctions by other stuff like partisan affiliation. That was where we saw bigger differences.

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 telephone versus what was the number

But the definitely yes number for those modes, I do not have at my fingertips, but I could get that up. I mean, that's getting a little more granular, so. All right. Thank you. No, that's fine. Yeah, I can look that up and get it back to the staff to get to you, though. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

That was it. Clarifying questions. Council Member Bowler.

Thank you. Is it possible to put up Exhibit A to the resolution on the screen? Yeah, but before you do that, I'll move to something different. I just want 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, how that relates to other communities and their work in this area 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. In the past, yeah. Why don't we start with you, Mr. Hauser?

Yeah, I will be brief, and I really would like to hear from the city clerk. If the measure were to be approved, the city council would undertake a process to appoint the members of that 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 best practices here in the city. 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 knowing the city well and what we've seen in research. 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 measure. And I'll defer to city court for any other specifics.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Madam Clerk.

So I did a little research today very quickly and looked at kind of all of the past, not only just bond measures, but also the revenue measures. And we've never had this type of oversight committee before. 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 that resolution in first. OK, my computer just froze.

Hi, welcome to my world. There we go. Do you want to... What are you trying to look up? Oh, do you want the email you sent me?

Yeah, I've got it. It was just a froze. Now my computer is unfrozen, so I can keep looking for it. So there was...

It's a thing we do here. Yeah, we love it.

It's so fun. So there was... I started... I went all the way back to 2000, and basically that in 2000 was the first one was the library bond. And... Now my email's not even coming up. Yeah. Why is it not coming 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.

OK, that's perfect. I'll give it right back to you. OK, 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. 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 the firm that the city hires. 2016 AMP transfer that is in the charter now, that mentioned a tax administrator may conduct an audit. The 2018 sales tax resolution that then passed and wasn't tied to bonding mentioned an annual audit by the city's independent auditor. And the 2022 TOT measure mentions annual independent audits.

And that was the- And to be clear, the independent auditor is like the firm maize and associates?

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

Thank you. Sorry, my computer froze. Anytime. You want my iPad? No.

That'll freeze. OK, back to you, Council Member Bullard.

Thank you. And before I ask about Exhibit A, I'll ask a different question, I guess. This has to do with the way the bond is structured through the community contributions. So it's my understanding it's $49 per $100,000 of assessed value of any given property. And I was just hoping to get some sense of how that was how that decision was arrived at in terms of being the structure for this particular 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, because of Prop 13, there's going to be some discrepancies. Although you can look at this different ways. I hope my question is not too general.

So before our initial polling, we looked at a few different financing scenarios. And we worked with the city's finance department as well as outside financial experts. I wish I was one. I'm not. But we came to the recommendation that we look at a bond specifically, A, because of the need, would also be because of the revenue that you could generate from it. A similar parcel tax would actually cost taxpayers more on average. And so we recommended we move forward with looking at an infrastructure bond. We actually, in the initial polling, looked at two different bonding amounts. We looked at $200 million and $300 million. And we asked voters if there was a difference. We saw that there statistically was not a difference. And so based on a need that's close to a billion dollars in the city, we recommended moving forward and looking solely at that $300 million rate. Your financial advisors did the back of the envelope math and did it in detail and found that a tax rate of $49 per 100,000 was needed to pay back that $300 million 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 going to spend less over time 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 regressive? Because you switched to parcel tax, right? Is there no way to do such a thing with a infrastructure bond?

The short answer is no. With an infrastructure bond, we are limited for what an ad valorem tax can and cannot be. It must be based on the assessed valuation of your property. 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 at a much higher market value. We did look, just 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 In initial polling and thus decided it wasn't the best best path forward Thank you so much.

I don't know if Oh great just so this is a exhibit a to the proposed resolution and The question is as you can see on exhibit a there's a 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 come to the conclusion to get to this level of specificity, is it common to have this level of specificity? And what are some of the reasons for how we did it this way?

I would say this project list, to me, reads more like a school bond project list than a city bond. I've worked on a lot of city infrastructure bonds where there was not this level of specificity. But again, when we're looking at a list of infrastructure needs north of $800 million and a bond that is not going to come close to that, we felt that it was important to give some guardrails to the use of the funds. And the intent would be that this document you would adopt as a council and would be available to the public. But also, if the measure were to be successful, your oversight committee would be reviewing this document 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 defer to the 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, you weren't hamstrung into uses of funds that make sense today that might not make sense 10 years from now. 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 because, you know, based on the feedback we heard, we felt like it was an important piece of transparency for your voters.

Thank you. Are there clarifying questions? Council? Council Member Jensen?

Thank you. Can you put that slide back up, please? And thank you, Council Member Bowler, for bringing that up. So my first question is related to this slide and especially some of the projects on here. So if we look at the second to the last 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 bond revenue will replace existing revenue streams for the maintenance projects like pavement and ADA upgrades and sewers.

You know what? I see, no, no, yeah. Keep coming. I see our public works director, Erin Smith, and I'm going to call on her to please address that.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the council. I'm Erin Smith, the city's public works director. Thank you for the question, Council Member Jensen. So, and just to rephrase the question to make sure I understood it, you're asking if the bond 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 $4 to $5 million a year in our paving program. That is insufficient to keep pace with our aging streets. So what this potential revenue would be would be an infusion to allow us to deal with the deferred maintenance. As it relates to paving, oftentimes that $5 million goes towards maintenance pavement preservation, so things like slurry seals and cape seals. And once a street essentially is failed or requires what we call an 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 score. And then the transportation funding would continue to be our baseline to keep the streets that we do repave with this revenue preserved.

And is that true for ADA improvements as well? That doesn't come from another source? So 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 sources that she noted, Measure BB, the vehicle registration fund, et cetera, but they're insufficient. So we have funds. And to the ADA question.

Sure. Yeah, thanks. And the ADA sort of overlaps a bit with our streets. 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. So ADA, as it relates to our facilities, does not have a dedicated revenue stream. However, council two budgets ago did 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. And so this revenue would go into the facility sides of things, and both facilities as it relates to City Hall, City Hall West, but also our parks, facilities, and recreation centers.

And finally, the other issue or area here is sewers. And as you and I discussed briefly, there was a sewer tax has been approved twice in the last eight years. So again, I suspect you'll say that this will supplement those funds.

Yeah, thanks for the question. So our sewer system, and then we have a separate storm system. Our sewer system, 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, does not have sufficient revenue coming in. There are two items on a resident's tax roll. 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 most recently in 2019 that rate that we adopted filled a gap for our operational needs and then has a modest amount for capital 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 needs are getting greater as sea level rises. So thank you. My next question for you also, and it also might be for the the consultants is I notice in the public information that was put out, 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 seismic safety and stability of our bridges.

So of our bridges, so in the original outreach that was done and surveying that was done as part of this project, there was a proposed idea of the city providing a backup power source when 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.

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 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

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 bridge work.

Right. But I'm just looking at the survey that went out, the mailing that went out to all residents that talks about seismic safety for bridges. So thank you, director. My other question is for, I have two more questions. 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.

You'll 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 Daszak'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. And then 33. 36 and 33. So very similar.

OK. And which was first?

Phone versus phone first online second Back in the day I used to print out all these things We're saving trees don't do that anymore so councilmember Jensen yours questions specifically were Homeowners renters and landlords Let's see here. 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 I might be able to get to it quicker. Yeah.

All right. Yeah, so I mean that has the, I think the percentage was, 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 pull that up. Sure, sure.

I have one more question for either you or your colleague. Regarding the outreach, if this is put on the ballot by the city council by the end of the month and it goes on to the November ballot, it was mentioned that at that point the city would not be available or able to lobby or advocate on behalf of the measure, right?

That's correct.

Does that include city staff? Are city staff allowed to advocate or go after?

I think I'm going to ask the city attorney's office to answer legal questions. Mr. Shen?

Council member, no. City staff cannot lobby any more than contracted city personnel, like the consultants, using city funds.

So in, say, a person's individual capacity outside of city?

Indeed. So anyone in their non-city capacity not using city funds have First Amendment rights, and they can undertake those activities quite apart from their city employment. But city funds, city resources, city staff on staff time cannot be used to engage in lobbying.

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

Certainly not. Whether they're police officers or admin techs or attorneys, nobody, no city employee can be out lobbying 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.

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

It's a fine distinction, but... Maybe, Mr. Shen, excuse the interruption, like, say, wearing a T-shirt?

Right, exactly. 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? Councillor McJensen? No, it's just one of the questions that I'd asked earlier about responses from renters and homeowners. Thank you. I have no other questions.

Oh, OK. No other questions? OK. So with that, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment on this item?

We do. How many? I think we have, we're up to, it looks like 12.

OK, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to call the break now. We always take a break after two hours. It is 8.48. 9 o'clock is when I would call the break. So I'm going to call a break now. We will be back at 9.05. So please, everybody, be in your places by 9.05. And we'll go right into our public comment. Thank you. OK, everyone. It is 9.05, and I'm calling the meeting back to order. Counsel, 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. Mike DeWint, Drew Dara Abrams, and Mitch Ball.

All right. Welcome. And Madam Clerk, could you tell us how many? Oh, they'll get two minutes. Perfect. Thank you. Welcome.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council, city staff. My name is Mike DeWitt. 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 689. I love the city. It's where my family lives, where my children are growing up, going to school, go Jets, and where I've dedicated my career. Tonight's vote is not about approving the $300 million bond. 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. The facilities plan and the community risk assessment and standards of coverage completed independently over several years reach the same conclusions. Our emergency infrastructure is aging. Our stations need modernization. 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. Fire Station 2 is 105 years old. The expected life of a fire station is 50 to 75 years. Stations 1, 2, and 4 also require modernization. Several were built before today's essential service seismic standards. These are not cosmetic issues. They affect our ability to protect this community when it needs us most. So this isn't about building fancy fire stations. It's about providing 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 trained 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. Drew Dara Abrams, Mitch Ball, and then Andreas Kluver. OK. Welcome, Speaker Dara Abrams.

Hi, good evening, Mayor, Council Members, Drew Derr, Abrams. I live with my family on the East End, and I serve on the Transportation Commission. I wanted to share a story from May 2025, when on the Transportation Commission, we learned a meaningful change to how the city budgets, plans, pays for maintaining our streets. At that point, gas tax revenues and other traditional funding measures had sufficiently decreased. EVs are good. They have other effects. And the costs of pavement had gone up. Oil is actually one of the ingredients in asphalt. So you see that chart. Scott Wickstrom has to budget for that. And so what happened as a result is the city tapped the general fund to pay for that annual 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 as you heard from our public works director, failed streets just have to wait for a future fund source. That rocky road out by the edge of the Bay Farm Business Park, that's one of them. It's never going to get repaired by that $5 million annual 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 Abian. Welcome, Speaker 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, it 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 written 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 polling, page 40 of exhibit 4. Thank you, Councilmember Bowler, for pushing on this, and I would like to kindly request that you and other councilmembers continue pushing on this topic. While 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. 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 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 continued into 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. Thank you.

Our next speaker. Andreas Kluver, then Adrian Abion, 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 at first, I just want to, again, appreciate the longstanding 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 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 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 Abuyen, then Malia Vela, then Zach Boling.

Welcome, Speaker Abuyen.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City 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 FOSS 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 Alameda. Of course, it is a full service city. I also want to just make sure that I underscore that I support, hopefully, your decision to put this bond measure on the ballot for November, and 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 got the F grade, which means it's not just a tier rating, but it's failing the need for such a vital service in a city, for a service that not only prioritizes the care of animals, but just as much as we serve animals, 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 facility's 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 like it to be.

Thank you so much. Our next speaker. Malia Vela, then Zach Boling, then Ruth Abbey. Welcome, Speaker Vela.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Vice Mayor, members of the council, Malia Vela. I'm here tonight as a mom and as a former vice mayor and council member who understands the deferred maintenance needs of the city and a fellow Alamedan, too. many neighbors who experienced firsthand the flooding 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 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.

Thank you so much. Our next speaker.

Zach Bolling, then Ruth Abbey, then we'll go to our remote. You're welcome, Mr. Bolling.

Speaker Bolling.

Good 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 am asking for a 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. They 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 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. This is not the campaign. This is the first step. to actually convince voters why this is necessary. And I plan to help with that as much as I can, because this is important to our community. 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. If this dies tonight, it doesn't mean these problems go away. We still have to solve these problems. They get put under a 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 Abbey. No problem. Speaker Abbey, of course. Welcome.

Good evening, members of the City Council. Ruth Abbey from Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda. We are coming to strongly support that the council put this measure on the ballot. You probably only see me when I say that Alameda is uniquely vulnerable to sea level rise and 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 homeowners in Bay Farm Island 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 shoreline on the bayfront is appropriately managed with nature-based solutions, welcoming the water and living with all that for our community. So we had a remarkable success and award-winning planning for our future for climate and for 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, the mayor mentioned that 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, volunteers knocking on doors, 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 look forward to 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. 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 a very clear example. Alameda's pavement quality is currently around average, but if we allow it to deteriorate, we will pay significantly more in reconstruction costs later, and will 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. There are a number of questions that I have. One is about when the Tax would start, would landlords be able to pass the tax on to their tenants? Would the entire, what was it, $49 be applied even if only, say, $100,000 bonds were issued? i question the usefulness of an oversight committee that's sort of like the committee that checks on the barn after the cow is gone i think it would be more cost effective to have the independent city auditor review this i'm confused about the concern about taking money from the general fund the general fund as you as 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 uh i don't quite understand that I just want some of these details explained. If we need the money, we need the money. And my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be very happy to pay the interest off long into the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker? Meredith Hoskin. Welcome, Speaker Hoskin.

Good evening. Hello, I am 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 risks 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 and exceptional city staff and community oversight to ensure these 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 council discussion. Vice Mayor, would you like to lead us off? Yes. Sure.

So in short, I do support this. Our need is really closer to $800 million. But at this time, our residents seem to be more comfortable with only a $300 million 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 to be very broad. Many projects in these areas have been highlighted, as Councilmember Buller noted in Appendix A. Yeah. 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 excess funds for additional projects. 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. 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 Boller, may I call you next?

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 that 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 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 a pretty hard act 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 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 enthusiastically support putting this on the November ballot and letting the voters decide their future.

Thank you. Council Member Jensen?

I'll go last.

I'm calling on you now, Council Member Jensen.

I don't have anything to say.

OK. So you're going to make no comments on this?

I prefer to comment in a moment, if you don't mind.

OK. So just for the record, I'm the mayor and I'm going last.

What about Council Member Daszak?

So you would like to go after Council Member Daszak? Thank you. OK. Council Member Daszak?

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the comments by my colleagues on the dais, as well as the contributions of the members of the public who attended tonight and attended via Zoom or even attended by email. And I do think that this is an important moment for all of Alameda. 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 climate change issues along our shorelines, but certainly underneath our streets as a result of the rising groundwater. But if it is true that we need to rise to the occasion dealing with 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 presented ordinance, it's not so much a list as it is kind of a broad category activities that would be funded. The categories, as was discussed tonight, have to do with preventing flooding, preparing for earthquakes, broad categories such as maintaining rapid response to fires, repairing potholes, and keeping streets safe. And within the broad categories, there are specific bullet points which are more subcategories than lists. The type of lists where voters are clear as to what it is they're expected to fund was presented in the prior agenda item when we talked about, I believe it was five specific fire department 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 and that clearly is not included in what's before us tonight for example In either of the categories or even the subcategories, there could be a delineation of some percentage of the $300 million will be devoted towards repairing potholes and keeping safe streets. Some percentage will be devoted towards maintaining rapid response to fires. It's worth mentioning that because the five categories for the fire department itself just the five five entity five fire department assets amount to 158 million dollars Now as the assistant city manager Amy Wooldridge said not all of the 300 million dollars is going to be spent on five but But it is important to know that 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 Because if it was about letting the Alameda voters decide how to spend the $300 million, 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. And I do think that this and past city council members will certainly think about what is good for the public. And they will make their decisions, I have no doubt, with a public 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. And I do believe that there needs to be a list, not simply a grouping of categories and subcategories of projects. I recognize that perhaps mine might be the minority view of what's before us tonight. And I understand that. I make my decisions with wide eyes open, eyes wide open, and try my best to represent this view of the residents. So in summary, I appreciate the work that had gone towards 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 decision again tonight in 2026, that I'm still waiting for the list of specific projects that we are asking the residents through the city council to fund. It's kind of like, show us the Carfax. Show us the list. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Jensen.

Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for those comments. Thank you to staff for all the hard work with this measure. So 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 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. I appreciate Councilmember Daszak's focus on identifying specific projects in the bond language. 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, I want to thank staff for the facility needs assessment that we heard earlier tonight. That is very informative, and it does contribute to my decision making. And it does show that there are competing priorities. I believe staff is equipped to make those decisions, though. In addition to having no way to identify or delineate any project to address climate change. We cannot put into this measure some dollar amount or some tranche to say that this is the money that will be spent or the project that will be addressed for climate change in this bond. We have to have flexibility. But there will be oversight. And finally, the establishment of a bond oversight committee will be an important safeguard, I think, to ensure that overall that the community's needs are addressed, the facility needs of our city are addressed, and that the language of the measure is supported and to improve accountability. 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, Councilmember. I'm the fourth vote, but I have a few things to say. Councilmember Dasog, I was there for the vote in 2024 when you and then Councilmember 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. And so when you say that future council members will be the ones to make decisions, that is only if future council members are willing to make decisions. And I will submit to you in my 14th year of serving this city that the voters elected us to make decisions, not to just sit in a chair and kick a can down the road and raise the same tired objections that we've seen over and over again. This is about democracy in its most fundamental form. Let the voters decide how the voters want to spend their money. You were critical of the information that we are basing these decisions on, but Councilmember Daszak, 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 as was noted by you yourself, we are an island. We're especially vulnerable. And so we don't have any time to lose. 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 we can always criticize polling data. There weren't enough, enough renters, enough this, enough that. In the year 2000, I co-chaired a campaign to build a new library. And did our polling show that we absolutely had 2 third 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 this city. So I have sat, I have hoped against hope, that this would be a unanimous measure. I don't care. 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 Thorne Lyman, Ann Moore, 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 Council Member Dasog, you had consented to talking with our consultant and our pollsters, you would know there are reasons for not doing the level. I will call on you and ask you to stop interrupting me. The level of specificity you are asking for is untenable for a number of reasons that would have been Explain to you, 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 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 fine and adopts the resolution

All right, who will make that motion?

Point of order. I think point of order takes precedence over.

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. Can I just say so moved or should I?

Yeah, it can be so moved. Okay, so moved. Can I second? Okay, it's been moved by Vice Mayor Pyers, seconded by Council Member Boulder, and now we will hear from you, Council Member Daszak.

Well, thank you. In terms of communicating with staff, staff had requested that I attend meetings with the consultant. And in response to that, I said, you know what? There's no need to meet, 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 questions. So the notion that I did not meet with staff and did not make any effort is incorrect. So I just want to say that for the point of order.

Thank you for that. But you did refuse the meetings that were offered.

I'm not sure how you know how I communicate with staff. I'm not sure 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 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. No, aye. One no. Four affirmative and 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 7B.

Adoption resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 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?

I can briefly, yeah. I can briefly say. You're so much more eloquent. Okay. So this came about from a charter subcommittee of the mayor and the vice mayor. They kind of picked up, 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 What's in the municipal code or things like that? So it does contain quite a few sections that are being amended and and 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 remainder of the presentation But in in addition tonight, you'll be considering the question and there's been some potential to amend the question and clarify it a little bit further With adding a few words about conforming to existing practices because that wasn't in the question currently And then 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.

Ah, yes. Thank you. 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 charter review subcommittee, which was the vice mayor, Michelle Pryor. It was last year, in 2025. And since that time, we have met, oh, how many times have we met with the city attorney and the city clerk? At least, say, four or five.

And then I think you guys also met a couple times yourselves.

Right. Right, right. And so to discuss these, and I thank you, Madam Clerk, 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 cleanup language. And I think it's pretty clearly stated on the, I think it's the... The resolution, what we would be calling for, the additions are underlined. And there's some strikeouts about cleanup language. So I would entertain any comments. Clarifying questions. And if we have any public comments, we'll hear those too. Council, any clarifying questions? Council Member Jensen?

This is for the city clerk. What was the date of the action to establish the charter subcommittee?

I don't know that specific date. And I can go back in the record and look. But I know the first time we met, I think, was like September of 2025. So it was established, I think, before.

Well, no, no. I mean the public meeting, the public approval by the city council.

No. It was established by the mayor. The mayor just established. So this never came.

The subcommittee was never approved or the city council did.

I think I announced it in public session.

But the council didn't vote on it She just formed 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 discuss were the 2019 and 2020 there was a lot of robust? 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. I

Well, I think one that we're not going to hear tonight was discussed by a previous subcommittee about eliminating the positions of the elected treasurer and auditor. So, but that's not before us today. I can give you like one example. I do all of the interviewing with whatever staff members, staffs of particular board or commission. And I always look over the questions we ask. And whether it's a board, it was created by the charter. If it's a commission, it was created by an ordinance. And I think it is in the Public Utility Board. One of the requirements was that there be a mining engineer.

I get what you're saying. Section 12-4? Yeah. It was saying something about fiscal books and records for each utility under its control and management in the manner prescribed by the California Railroad Commission.

And then somewhere even before that, when you look up at section 10-7, this is on page 4 of the resolution, one member of the public utilities board shall be an electrical, civil, mining, or mechanical engineer. And we changed that to um.

And one of whom shall be.

I'm sorry. I can read it.

Yeah. OK. So in section 10-3 on page 4, it says the Public Utilities Board shall consist of five members, one of whom shall be the city manager who shall have full power of participating and 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 list of qualifying engineers. We consulted with the general manager of AMP, Tim Haynes, about what would be practical in today's day and age that mining engineer might have been when we used coal as a source, but we don't anymore. Anyway, it really is. Updating and cleanup. So Thank you other questions council councilmember bowler I

Yeah, 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, staff for council members.

Give us a page number and a reference, if you would.

I don't have. I just have some notes. I don't have that.

Do you want to look at my notes? Will that help in the resume?

No, I can pull that up. Give me a moment.

Okay, just so we can all literally be on the same page. If anyone else has questions, are you ready?

On page two, yeah, there's for section 2-3. So basically where I think this is basically exempting particular staff members from civil service. And I'm just kind of wondering what's the practice, the reason here, and also I think this is probably for mostly part-time type work, I think.

And I'm going to defer to either city attorney or city clerk are both back and forth.

Madam, I'm happy to start the city clerk. I'm sure we'll have way more insights than I do 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 have an assistant given her busy schedule and so when that occurred It was 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 2-10 Deals with

A vacant office appointment. Yeah, and I'm just curious if that's conforming to existing practice or something different.

I can try and think this one.

We can go back and forth. So this one, I think, it was a 21 days isn't much time, and they could run into issues. So 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 it was just trying to make it a little more reasonable with the current environment and situation.

OK, thank you. I have a few other questions, if I may. Thank you. So I know we talked a little bit about the Public Utilities Board qualifications, I think. Could we Well, I think it was already addressed though, right? That's section 10-7 on page 4.

I've got the concept of that one. I remember that one.

Yeah, I think we've already covered that.

It's now section 10-3. Yeah, it just moved up.

Oh, right. Thank you. And then similar question as to the Historical Advisory Board, which I think appears in section 28-3 on page 5.

Yeah, and I think that one's to match what's in the municipal code currently. They already have been following that in the municipal code.

I believe that's correct. Yes, yes, yes.

Is that right? So somehow the municipal code was in conflict with this charter?

Yeah, because they delineated more what they wanted in the municipal code.

And a little more specific than demonstrated an interest in history, heritage, and architecture of the city of Alameda. So 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 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.

Okay. And remind us for 8.2. Yes. 8.2 starts at the bottom of page three, right? Oh.

Yes, I'm happy to. So there has been a longstanding city attorney opinion from my office well before my time that indicates that litigation can only be commenced by council authority alone. And so the city attorney's office has always consistently followed that practice, again, well before my time. And so we're conforming the charter provision to that city attorney opinion from quite a while back.

OK. And there is a section, again, if someone could help me, that deals with 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 not. The City Council always hires the auditor.

Laura, remind us the section.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's in 12-4 at the bottom of page 4. Yes, yes. Council's always approved that contract for a very long time, too.

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 when I first read these, I wasn't sure how much substance was behind all these in terms of changing. And then we get these explanations, which are very helpful. And they're not in the staff report. I know that there's a process for if this goes on the ballot, there'll be But there's also, I guess, is there an independent or a 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.

OK. Thank you. I appreciate those questions and answers.

OK. Any further questions, council? Council Member Jensen.

This is a question about 7-2J amendment to appoint technical advisory experts at such compensation as may be provided by the council. It seems to eliminate the council's consent for technical advisory experts appointment.

I think that's to conform with existing practice, too, if the council hasn't been weighing in on that.

You're referring to 7-2J, council member? Right.

So is that to say that technical advisory experts are not, 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. Section 7 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.

Thank you.

other questions council members okay so um might i please i think perhaps in some of these sections like sections i've actually 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 a good suggestion i'm typing it in the resolution right now 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 two is about the council, so maybe adding it for each of those sections to put in what the overarching article refers to.

Maybe the title of the section it came from, or the chapter it came from.

Yeah. I could add that to each of those. I think that might provide some clarity and help. That's a very good point.

Okay. Yes, I like that. Good.

I can revise the resolution accordingly. No problem.

Okay. Okay. Anything further, counsel? Okay. So what this is is... We're looking for- We do have one speaker. Oh, I'm so sorry. No worries. No worries. And we have a remote speaker, too. Our council questions were answered. So our public speaker, please.

OK. We have one in person, Zach Bolling.

Welcome, Speaker Bolling.

I'll be really quick. I'm just asking for a yes vote on this. There was one thing. Over the years, I've sent emails of little things that would be nice in the charter to the council over time, and there's some stuff that was already in here. No red flags that I found. 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 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... You might find the one word where it wasn't matched, but that's all.

OK. That's all. All right. I think that's just a typo from the previous amendment, and we can fix that. OK. If I can find it.

Or if you can send it to me, please. OK. Thank you. I remember us talking about something being fixed, but I don't know where in the document. Oh, no. That's awful.

I think we'll find it. Oh, no.

OK. Thank you. OK. OK. So we have a question. We've heard.

Oh, we have a remote speaker, too. Sorry. Uh-huh. Carmen Reid.

Welcome, Speaker Reid.

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.

great well thank you so much madam mayor and city council members thanks for this opportunity to say a few words um 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 But my main concern, which I think is pretty obvious here, is that this proposal lumps together over 10 different amendments. And 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 you know, as the mayor would like you to think. It's actually a lot of substantive changes. including, 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, you know, a certain level of experience that's necessary in order to, for example, look at architectural drawings and understand some very, very specific things. And that goes along with the Public Utilities Board. We also need these experts in their fields to be on our boards and commissions to properly weigh in and support our community. In my letter, I have shared with you some court cases that I hope that you will review. I think that there could be some legal risk to the city as well if you lump in all of these items in one ballot measure. And as you 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 ballot thank you so much our next speaker

that was our last one okay so we'll close public comment on that and i just um it's not q a but i do want clarification because there seemed to be some misunderstanding we absolutely need and have 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 when I read my nominations at the end of the agenda that I'm reappointing our excellent licensed contractor. Absolutely. It was more like a vague sort of nonspecific 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 that's just not a category that has relevance for our public utility board that oversees the operations of AMP with its 100% clean green portfolio. So I think there was some misunderstanding. But anyway, OK. And then, Madam Clerk, can you just speak a little bit to the cost of, say, putting a bunch of separate ballot items on the ballot?

Yes, absolutely. The city clerks have been trying to work with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to get 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 $500,000 if we put five measures on the ballot, as it currently stands. We don't know if they're going to 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 gamble. So I just wanted to be very frank about it and explain that it happened to the city of Albany last year. They had that fifth measure, and they paid double of their whole election for it. Yeah, it's unclear where it's going to go. And I just think I'd caution the council against doing too many measures just for that reason. 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 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 OK with understanding it. And following what thank you for that.

Yes, ma'am. Okay.

All right, so I'm Moving along so we're looking 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 whatever number it is regarding whatever it is. And then 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 to conform to existing practices and amend and repeal outdated provisions. So we're adding that phrase into that question.

And there's a red line version, I think, in the file.

Yeah, I can upload the red line version. Not there yet, but I can upload it tomorrow for people to look at. I didn't have it uploaded today. Oh, OK. I see.

I see. Council Member Bowler?

Thank you. And I doubt that the city attorney would be able to 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 risk here in terms of consolidating these different issues together

So Councilmember Buller, I think what the speaker was referring to is the 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 a large number of substantive measures all in one charter amendment. And courts have not overturned them. And so I think that what the speaker is referring to is fairly antiquated case authority that has not been followed in recent times.

Good question. Thank you. All right. So we're looking for 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 Pryor, seconded by Council Member Boulder. Any further discussion?

I'll offer comments.

Council Member Daszak.

Thank you. I won't be supporting this measure tonight, because I believe the process that we had adopted and implemented back in 2019 and 2020 when Vice Mayor John Knox-White and myself were a charter reform committee is something that should have been done in this case. And that was a very robust process where Councilmember Knox-White and myself reached out to organizations 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 began our process by saying we're going to have a bucket list of those things that we think are controversial or require a lot more work, and another bucket list of charter changes that might be not so controversial. And out of that process came the recommendation, for example, to make sure that the attempt to reform Measure A was separated from everything. And out of that process came recommendations with regard to allowing the city attorney's office to engage in the type of unique activities that he now engages in. as well as the pay raise, as well as a third substantive item had to do with adopting the grand jury reforms. But it was a very robust and iterative process That involved the council and in fact, we came to City Council in May of 2020 with our final recommendations Purposefully to say that well, you know that gives us time between May and July should we change our minds? So, um I you know, I I think the process was not as served as well as as back in 2020 so and and there might be some things in here that we just don't realize until too late that it's very profound that we're adopting. So I prefer what we did in 2020, so that process.

So Councilmember Daszak, can you point to anything here that you find substantive and controversial? Because I do remember, I think I appointed you and 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 give me an example, if you will, to help me understand your concerns.

Yeah, there could be certainly substantive items in there that we catch just too late. And we think that that is just a cleanup, but then we too late realize that, oh gosh, we didn't quite realize what the implications of that decision is. So 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? So that's the most I can say right now.

So you haven't had the opportunity to read them, is that it?

Well, I've read them all. And for it to sink in, maybe later on I might realize that it is substantive and profound.

OK, any further council 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 is something substantial and profound that they don't want changed. Vice Mayor?

Yeah, I would say this is truly a cleanup. And the reason why we parsed it out from the other charter amendments is because we're just making language concise and deleting dated references. There are some things where we need to adhere to state law or make informal practices part of the charter. And it's cost prohibitive to put all the language cleanup for every edit. I mean, overall, it's innocuous. It's cleanup.

Any further council questions, comments, Council Member Jensen?

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Daszak. I agree with your points about the lack of transparency in the process. As we heard, the subcommittee was established without any input from the public or from the council. 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 as we look at the other charter amendments, I probably won't be supportive because it's just bad government to rush these things and jam things like this through when the public really should have an opportunity to comment and provide information.

Well, thank you for that. Um, let's see We had a motion by vice mayor prior second by councilmember full bowler all those in favor, please signify by stating aye aye Opposed the motion carries four to one. Thank you, madam Let's move on to item 7c, but madam air I believe the council also needs to designate. Oh, yeah

Thank you. Members to write arguments in favor and against the measure. Yes.

Yes. Okay. I am wondering 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, OK. We need to designate the author of the argument. It's a subcommittee. But it has to be a subcommittee of two. Can it 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 there is any. And then you could do one for each of those, or you can do one subcommittee to do both.

Okay, well let me ask Councilmember bowler and vice mayor prior. Would you two like to be? 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 a an argument opposing, then you would also author the rebuttal. And I would say, oh, let's see, what else do they need to know?

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. Can I just ask a clarifying question?

Yes, use your microphone, please.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah, just generally, when does this rule kick in versus, you know, obviously we didn't do this in 7a, so...

Oh, you will do that at the next meeting for 7A. Oh, because it's a second meeting. Yeah, 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 isn't it in the body of the staff report?

Yes, the body of the staff report does have the deadlines. I can call it up. Oh, 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 and not wait until the plane first.

Yes, it gives you more time, a little bit more time. So the direct arguments are due, and those you know, basically that anybody from another side can submit against. So those are due. Oh my gosh, I need glasses. Tuesday, July 30, 2024. So you have until Tuesday, July 30, 2024. 2026. Oh, 2026. Yeah. Oh, I'm in the wrong report. I had up the other report. That was very confusing, too. Thank you, thank you. Let me get the right dates for you. Because that didn't seem right. OK, it's Thursday, July 23. That did seem very long. Thursday, July 23, they're due at 5 PM. And 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 be due Monday, August 3.

Question?

Council Member Desai.

Does the city council also approve those who would write the nay opposition?

You can.

Yeah.

Well, then I would be happy to.

Who would do the?

The city council could choose from its members who would write the rebuttal against it.

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 be drafters. I think it's just better practice not to.

Question.

I mean, are you talking about writing the opposition to? Oh, I mean, we don't approve that, right?

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.

OK. And we still have to turn it in July 23.

Yes. But why would we designate someone to write the opposition to a motion that were to an item that we're supporting.

So the council had, oh, I think the city clerk wants to say something.

You can finish yours first, but I have something to add.

I was going to say, the council could do that. It would just give priority if there were multiple people riding, and that the city clerk would be able to choose that person as the first on the list. It just gives priority. But council members can ride anyways, and they would have priority anyways. And so they're likely to be chosen in any event.

The Elections Code specifies an order of priority. That's exactly right. That's what I was going to jump in and add. So council members are first. Bonafide organizations are second. General electors third.

So I don't do that this often.

I'll leave it to you. I mean, I think I'll still write. Sure. But if you want to designate, I 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 can be out there writing as many as they want. Right. The priority is 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.

It's not October, it's August. It was August, yeah. August 3rd? August 3rd. Thank you.

Yep, Monday, August 3rd by 5 p.m. July 23rd for the direct argument in favor, and then... August 3rd for the response to any rebuttal.

Yeah, and you'll be transmitted the other side once the first deadline closes, and then you'll both get the other side and be able to write that rebuttal. And the deadline will be re-emphasized in the email.

Any other questions, counsel? July 23rd is Thursday, right?

Yes.

Thursday, July 23rd, and Monday, August 3rd. Yes, correct, correct. Thank you. 5 p.m.

OK. We voted. We designated. What else?

Yeah, you need to vote on that. Oh. Right. The council needs to vote designating who's going to write the argument.

Oh, OK. OK. All right. So we need a motion. OK. Well, I would like to move that the subcommittee to both draft the argument in favor and the rebuttal to any argument in opposition be Vice Mayor Michelle Pryor and Councilmember Greg Bowler. Do I have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Any opposed?

I'll abstain. I don't know. All right.

And Council Member Jensen, did you vote? OK, it helps if you use the microphone. And it'll get into the record that way, too. OK, so that passes with a vote of four in favor and one opposed.

Abstain.

You abstain. Abstain. OK, all right. I did. OK. OK, are we done with that item? Yes, you're done with that one.

Thank you for catching up.

Yes, thank you. OK, we move on to item 7C.

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 3 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 against the measure

And here's where my iPad froze.

OK, so I can give a little background on this one. Yes, because this one came before the city council in 2024. It is basically the lease process in the city differs from a lot of other cities, and it's much more involved. The ordinance having a first and second reading and then 30 days to be effective. And then the four affirmative supermajority vote kind of were the focus of potential options and ways to change it. It didn't get placed on the measure. It actually was withdrawn in 2024. So this was another one that the current council subcommittee picked up and decided to revisit and craft a new potential measure to bring to you guys tonight. And it's the same thing. It's amending just that one section. 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 argument authors.

Right. And so what we're changing is, yeah, it's there in the staff report. So we amend section 3-10 to change Is it sales or leases or just leases?

Oh, yeah. So 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 were changing it to by resolution instead of by ordinance for sales and leases. And then the next part is being distinguished further, where the distinction is that You created an exception for Tidelands, because that already existed. And then except for leases 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 a lease for less than 10 years. And I know that this is something that has come up with, say, base reuse and economic development. And I wonder, and we have our base reuse and economic development director, Abby Thorne Lyman, Would you like to just address the proposed 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 mean, you all are the elected officials, so you understand the dynamics of councils. 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. 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 long-term investments that a private investor is trying to amortize over an extended period of time, for example. This body has done it in a couple of instances where we have very long-term tenants who have asked for it. And because these are, just by way of example, Faction Brewing, one of the original Alameda Point tenants, somebody who 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 common than not, if we're bringing a longer term lease, it has to do with the fact that this is either development, or perhaps in the case of Thailand, it's land 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 am communicating to prospective tenants. I am trying to channel this body and channel what we have discussed either in closed session or private, you know, in prior items to anticipate that we have items that this body would support. But I think when we have three versus four votes, I will say 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 the majority of council members would not support. So I discourage. Data centers, I will send you away, right? A storage unit, I will send you away. So I think I just want to say sort of subjectively that 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 think about leasing. And I think that this change would have an impact on that reputation.