City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

You know, it's like... I was at NCPA last night. They'll be fine. And it's once in a while.

i am calling this meeting to order good evening everyone and welcome i should ask is the balcony ready as if they're always ready hello hello all right well welcome everyone to the city council meeting of the alameda city council meeting tonight is july tuesday july 21st 2026 And we are about to go into closed session. But before we do, I would like to ask the city clerk, Laura Weisinger, to please call the roll.

Council Member Spolar? Here. Vice Mayor Pryor? Here. My volume is on. That was a surprise. Vice Mayor Pryor, Mayor Ezzie Ashcroft.

I'm here too. Okay, three present. And Council Member Jasag texted. He's running a couple minutes late, but he should be here in a moment.

And have we heard from our other colleagues?

We have not.

Okay, that's okay. So let's start with the consent calendar. These are routine items that will be approved by one motion unless removed by council members. Do we have any public comments? I'm looking for a motion and a second to, well, you should probably tell us what it is that we're voting on.

You're approving the negotiators for the, if I can get to my page, too, for the theater item and for the Scolari's item, for A and B.

Can we approve those in one? Yes. Okay, so I approve that.

You move approval.

I move approval.

And do you second? I do. I second. OK. We have a motion to approve by Vice Mayor Pryor, seconded by Council Member Bowler. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye. Do two. So that passes with three affirmative votes. And two of our colleagues aren't here yet. And then we go to public comment on closed session items. Madam Clerk, do we have public comment on closed session items?

We do. We have one. Kyle Connor.

Welcome, Speaker Connor. Come on up. And I always tell people, make the microphone yours at the level you need it.

Hello, everyone.

Hi.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. I'm here just to be present with this opportunity and the proposal that I think city staff presented to everybody. And just to let you know that I'm ready, willing, and able to move forward and to meet with any of you if you'd like to or to discuss it further. I know tonight's not the right time, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm very excited about Alameda. I'm very excited about our future here. And getting through COVID has been a major challenge for our business and our industry. And we're on the way back. And I'm very hopeful that we can improve our financial future in Alameda as we move forward. That's it, unless there's any questions for me.

Thank you so much. This is just public comment, not Q&A. But thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

And that was our only public comment on the closed session. Okay. So with that, we are going to adjourn into closed session to consider the following items that I'd like the city clerk to please read for us.

For AF Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, property is 2317 Central Avenue, the Alameda Theater. The negotiators are the city manager, base reuse and economic development director, economic development division manager, and assistant city attorney. Negotiating parties are the city of Alameda, Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Theater and Cineplex. Under negotiation are price and terms of lease and loans. 4B is conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 50956.8. The property is 2440 Monarch Street, building 43 at Alameda Point. The city negotiators are the city manager, base reuse and economic development director, base reuse manager, and... Jones, Lang, and LaSalle, managing director Francisco Torres, an assistant city attorney. Negotiating parties are the City of Alameda, Scolari's Restaurant, Inc., Chopper Guys. Underterms are price in terms of lease. 4C is conference with legal counsel, potential litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9, subsection D2. The number of cases is one with the city as defendant with exposure to legal action. The plaintiffs is Alameda Marina LLC. 4D is Conference of Legal Counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section 549569A. Case name is Miller v. City of Alameda et al. Court is Superior Court of the County of Alameda. Case number 24CV097206.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And so with that, we are going to adjourn into closed session. We intend to be back before the public at 7 o'clock this evening. So see you soon. So everyone who is involved in item 4A, please come on back to 391. Thank you. All right, everyone, this is the one minute warning. It is 6.59, so please take your places. The council's here on time, so we want to start on time. Oh, it got all quiet. All right. It is officially 7 o'clock. Ryan and Trang in the balcony. Are we ready? The balcony is ready. Then everyone's ready. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City Council meeting for the City of Alameda. Today is Tuesday, July 21, 2026. The Council has recently returned from closed session, and we would like to... the royal we would like to report out from actions taken in closed session, if any. Madam Clerk, where are we starting?

We'll just go through in the order there on the agenda. Item 4A was the theater real property negotiations and staff-provided information and council-provided direction. That carried by a vote of 4 to 1, with Councilmember Jensen voting no. The next item on the agenda was 4B, which was real property negotiations for Building 43. Staff provided information and council provided direction unanimously by five ayes. The next item was 4C, which was potential litigation with Alameda Marina. The city council approved a proposed settlement with Alameda Marina relating to a dispute in development impact fees and authorized the city attorney to execute a settlement agreement containing the following terms. One, the city waives park and transportation impact fees in amount of 2.318399 million, increase of 218,399 due to California construction cost index increase. Two, foundry shall pay all remaining impact fees $770,520 by October 31, 2026. Foundry shall comply with new inclusionary housing ordinance and provide 21 very low income housing units. If foundry does not Pull building permits by October 31, 2026. The fee waiver shall be null and void. And five, the foundry shall waive all current and future claims it has against the city. And this item carried unanimously by five ayes. The fourth item listed on the agenda was existing litigation of Miller versus City of Alameda. The item was not heard, but I will report out from the action taken at the July 7, 2026 closed session meeting that this case involves a lawsuit filed by plaintiff. Mahasani Miller against the city of Alameda after he was struck by a city vehicle while exercising at a city park and sustained injuries requiring significant medical attention. The city council authorized the city attorney to resolve this case for $235,000. And that is all.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And with that, I will adjourn the city council closed session. And I will call to order the regular city council meeting. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like to ask my colleague, Greg Bowler, to please lead us in the pledge.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And follow me.

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, Council Member Bowler. Madam Clerk, do we have any agenda changes? We have none. All right. Well, there is a proclamation. It's not on the agenda, but sometimes they're not. And I'll read it now. On May 13, 2019, Ibn Shen became Alameda's city attorney, having served as chief deputy city attorney for the city of Santa Monica before that. Now in his eighth year as our city attorney, Eben finds himself navigating the challenges of the sandwich generation as he and his husband juggle caring for aging parents in different parts of the state and raising their son while engaged in fulfilling but demanding careers. As we reluctantly bid farewell to our well-regarded and well-respected city attorney, we want to highlight Eben's considerable accomplishments during his tenure in Alameda. Eben hit the ground running upon his arrival in Alameda, shepherding the city through the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing sound legal advice to the city council and staff as part of the city's robust and wide-ranging response to this unprecedented situation. Related to the pandemic, Eben successfully protected the city's food delivery ordinance against strong legal pushback from third party food delivery companies. In 2020, recognizing the need to prosecute misdemeanor crimes that the Alameda County District Attorney's Office lacked the capacity to pursue, including domestic violence, battery, driving under the influence, elder abuse, theft and assault, Eben assisted the city council in bringing a ballot measure to Alameda voters who overwhelmingly approved it. The passage of Measure AA created the Prosecution and Public Rights Unit, or the PPRU, of the city attorney's office. Now in its sixth year, the unit has resolved over 1,000 cases since its inception, including through pleas, diversion, and trial. And earlier this year, the PPRU established an in-house victim services division to provide case management and support services for crime victims and witnesses to ensure access to essential resources and assistance throughout the often lengthy criminal justice process. Eben also assisted the city council's establishment of the police auditor role to provide objective oversight of the Alameda Police Department to ensure transparency and public accountability. The police auditor operates within the city attorney's office and is supervised by Eben. educating local renters and landlords about their rights and responsibilities has been a major focus of eben's tenure and in 2021 he pioneered the city's first annual fair housing conference this educational event provides the community as well as city attorney's offices throughout the bay area an opportunity to learn from subject matter experts about the latest federal, state, and local laws impacting housing issues and landlord responsibilities. In 2025, the American Bar Association selected the Alameda City Attorney's Office as the recipient of its Hodson Award presented annually to a single government or public sector law office nationwide for outstanding performance and extraordinary service. This recognition was the result of the city attorney's successful efforts to extend rent control and eviction protections to 50 residents of Barnhill Marina, making Alameda the first jurisdiction in the state to regulate rent increases for maritime residences. The city attorney's office also brought a successful enforcement action against the marina owner. The city attorney's office also prevailed in litigation to secure rent control protections for 150 tenant households at the Admiral's Cove property, a case which even argued before the California Court of Appeal. The resulting landmark ruling established legal precedent for jurisdictions statewide and confirmed the authority to regulate rent increases for converted institutional housing of all types, including former military or school housing. Ibn also supervised legal aspects of numerous major city real estate transactions, including Side A, West Midway, and Reshape at Alameda Point, Ensenal Terminals, the sale of city property to the Alameda Food Bank, and many Alameda Point commercial leases. And last but not least, for the past eight years, Ibn Shen has served As a highly esteemed leader of the city attorney's office, a great mentor to and supporter of his team, and a model of legal excellence and personal integrity in the field of California municipal law, to the city council, Eben has been a trusted confidant sharing his legal acumen and professional judgment to help us make informed decisions. For all who had the pleasure of interacting with Eben, we will fondly remember his upbeat disposition, friendliness, and keen intellect combined with humility. Eben, you truly leave Alameda a better place than you found it. We are grateful for your time and your service to our community, and we wish you all the best in the future. Thank you, Marilyn, as the Ashcraft Mayor of the City of Alameda. I usually have a no applause rule, but we can set that aside if y'all would like to applaud. And I think we're going to have some public comment. But counsel, will you first join me with Eben, because I'd like to present him with his proclamation. Let's go down in front of the podium, if you would. I could not look at him while I was talking. I tried everything to destroy my body in front of his car. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any speakers present or anyone who'd like to make comments? Come on up to the podium. They're going back to work. OK. Come on up.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the city council, city staff, and members of the community. My name is Matt Sene-Kerimian, and I am an external affairs manager at the California Department of Justice. I'm honored to be here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta to recognize and celebrate City Attorney Shen's years of dedicated public service to the city of Alameda. Attorney General Bonta asked me to share his sincere gratitude for your leadership and unwavering commitment to serving the people of Alameda, as well as share some comments on behalf of the Attorney General himself. Throughout his tenure as city attorney, Mr. Shen has demonstrated that public service is about more than interpreting the law. It's about using the law to improve people's lives. One of the clearest examples of that commitment is the annual Fair Housing Conference, which he has organized for the past six years. Through that conference, City Attorney Shen has helped educate residents, landlords, tenants, and community members about their rights and responsibilities under the law, while advocating important conversations around consumer protection, fair housing, and fair labor standards. Attorney General Bonta has been proud to support those efforts over the years because he shares the belief that education is one of the most powerful tools we have to empower communities and prevent injustice before it occurs. The work of the city attorney has strengthened not only legal protections, but also public trust and community engagement here in Alameda. On behalf of Attorney General Bonta and everyone at the California Department of Justice, thank you, City Attorney Chen, for your years of service, your partnership, and your commitment to justice. We wish you the best in the next chapter and know that the impact of your work will continue to benefit this community for years to come. Congratulations and thank you.

Very nice. Thank you so much. And council, if anybody wants to make comments now or wait till your council communications, whichever.

Go ahead, guys. I was just going to say, you will be greatly missed. When I started a year and a half ago, I was a new council member. And you were so extremely supportive and informative. And you've made such an impact, not just on me as being able to serve our residents, but even recently with the BRUBS ban. And there was, oh, and then signing on the amicus briefs. You have just done such a stellar job of helping our residents, our most vulnerable residents, and then also helping us as a city stand up for everybody, especially in these times where people are being targeted. And I will miss you personally and professionally.

Thank you for that. OK. Council Member Bowler?

So earlier today, I had the pleasure of having lunch with Eben and his staff. It's been something we've been trying to do for months. And it was really a joy. And afterwards, got a chance to talk a little bit more personally with people on the staff and show them something that means a lot to me. And I want to start with a little quick poem. This won't take very long. It's a very short poem. Control of the motion of life, limits of forces beyond, stillness delights till it's stifling, challenges appeal. And a lot of people in this room know this, but the day after I basically knew I was elected to this office, I found out my mom passed away. And I was there for that. And I've been using my cubicle, which has a locked door, for showing her art. So we went to be able to go with the staff today over to look at that afterwards. And because you've had such a personal impact on me, I wanted to make sure you had a piece of art. And I asked you, what art here speaks to you? And this piece is called Challenges Appeal, which has a bit of irony. The very first piece you looked at has this sort of double conundrum connotation with the passion of your work, your work for the city. So on behalf of many people in Alameda, I want to thank you and give you this piece of my mom's art.

All right. Any other comments? All right. Oh, Council Member Daszak.

Well, thank you. I'll keep this brief. I just want to say from the bottom of my heart, thank you very much, Eben, for all that you have done for the city of Alameda in reorienting the city attorney's office in the way that you did. Each of us here on this dais can consider ourselves as lucky as being able to be trustees, elected council members, and mayors to a city that is at 172 years old, only 80 or so years maybe I might be doing my math wrong, maybe 78 years younger than the United States of America. So this city and the city council not only endures, but it thrives. And you can see that in the quality of life that the city of Alameda has always been proud of. But what you have left behind in the systems that you have put in place in bringing the prosecutorial unit to your office in ways that many cities across California simply do not do. in having the proactive small landlords, renters unit that you've put in place. You've put in systems that will last hopefully, another 150 years in the life of Alameda. And so I know that when people look back on city attorneys of the city of Alameda, they will see your contributions as a key inflection point in terms of making City Hall more responsive to the needs of residents of Alameda. So thank you, .

Thank you, Council Member Deaside. Council Member Jensen?

In Alameda, as we've heard from the mayor and from our colleagues, we have a number of unique programs in the city attorney's office. And I won't go through them to any large extent. But as a council member here in Alameda, I can say that the city attorneys here in Alameda underappreciated for all of the hard work that is being done in that office. And Eben has been a tremendous resource to all of us, to me in particular, because I do tend to call him often and regularly, even on weekends and Fridays. He's always responsive, and he sets an example, and that's just one I want to finish with. Even staff was here, and all of his staff that I've ever talked to provide such an outstanding example that he sets. They're responsive, they're considerate, and if they don't have the answer, they get the answer, and they provide it to Alameda citizens and Alameda residents, and that's So important that we understand that we have this resource that has been in place for the last eight years with City Attorney Shen and will continue for the future thanks to all of the hard work and all of the excellent staff that you've brought into Alameda. So thank you for all of that, all you've done.

and i'll just um wrap quickly and i i meant to acknowledge sooner but i want to thank len eslanian and julia gonzalez from the city attorney's office for helping me with the content of of the proclamation but even i was on the committee that selected you way back when it was a very qualified competitive field you had us at hello But you have just brought incredible energy and just this attitude that, yeah, we can do anything. This is important. We've got to do this. And we do, and it happens. And we're very proud of, as Council Member Daszak said, the legacy that will remain and continue after you've gone. And for those of us who may be attending the League of California Cities annual conference in, where is it this year?

September in Anaheim.

I said September in Anaheim. Our city attorney is speaking on a panel, so look for that. Anyway, but again, thank you. I tried everything possible to convince you, but I guess I wasn't that convincing. But we wish you all the best. Thank you again. All right, so now we are going to go on to oral communication on non-agenda items. But before we do, I'm just going to quickly go over the rules of conduct for a city council meeting. I remind people that this is a business meeting. We are conducting the business of the city of Alameda. It's not theater or a sporting event. So notwithstanding some earlier applause, that was for an extraordinary circumstance. So we asked no applause, boos, cheers, jeers. We don't do the wave. And the reason for all that, besides it makes a meeting go along more smoothly, Public speaking is one of the most stressful things for a lot of people. And I often have someone come to the microphone and say, I've never spoken at a city council meeting before. I'm nervous. And that's wonderful. Not that they're nervous, but that's wonderful that they're there for the first time. It would be really sad if someone didn't get up from their chair and come to the microphone because the last person was booed and they didn't want that to happen to them. So we just ask. And the other thing is, and it's true tonight, that there are often young people in the audience. I love that. Hello, young people. Welcome. But we want to set a good civic example for them. And that's what we as adults should be doing. And so let's just make this a safe place to speak, to listen, to be heard. Treat people the way you would like to be treated. You can certainly hold signs. That's your First Amendment right. I just ask that you not hold them over your head and block the people behind you unless you're in that very last row. And we'll have a nice, productive meeting. And then I just always have to read this language from the California Penal Code. which states that California Penal Code Section 403 states it is a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Penal Code Section 302 or Elections Code Section 18340. First violations will receive a warning, and continued violations will require additional action, which could include police intervention. So having dispensed with that, let's get on with the meeting. This is a time for oral communication on items that are not on the agenda and over which the council has jurisdiction. We take 15 minutes now at the top of the agenda. If there are more speakers, there's another opportunity when we finish the regular agenda. And depending on how many speakers we have on this item, that will tell us what your speaking time is. So Madam Clerk, oral communications?

We have four speakers, so they'll get three minutes each. The first up is Josh Altieri, and then Damian Mason, and then Carolyn Mason.

Welcome, Speaker Altieri.

Good evening, council members. My name is Josh Altieri. I'm the communications and community programs manager at the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. Thank you for your time and your service. The Housing Authority, as always, is staying busy operating our housing programs that serve over 3,000 local residents and 1,800 low-income households. We also partner with over 350 City of Alameda landlords to create more affordable housing opportunities. And we invite any rental property owner in the city here on the island to contact us about our Housing Choice Voucher Program and the benefits that lie within that program. Also tonight, we're thrilled to have two existing commissioners up for reappointment, Eric Huseby and Thelma DeCoy, and also potentially a new commissioner in Jerry Johnson. Earlier this spring and in the early summer, we published five property specific interest lists. on the doorway housing portal. We generated over 9,000 applications. And we'll be listing our sixth interest list in September for the China Clipper property. And we invite anyone that's interested in that affordable housing opportunity to visit our website at alamedahsg.org or sign up for our email newsletter at www.ahagroup.click. And then I just want to share some community partnerships that benefit some of our households. First is the Alameda Food Bank. Just want to give them a major shout out. They are going to be now servicing their fifth housing authority property at Esperanza Apartments, which is our largest family community development. And they're going to be serving homebound disabled households that cannot get out to the food bank for service. So thank you to their volunteers, their staff, and their leadership for their support. The Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter is coming out for their third event this summer to service our Housing Authority households. So again, microchips, vaccines, I think pet exams, food distribution. Again, thanks to the staff, volunteers, and the leadership there. Alameda Boys and Girls Club, free memberships for any household that has kids ages 5 to 17. And then thank you again to the city and the Rec and Parks Department for their partnership. They come out every Wednesday to our Esperanza Apartments, which is the largest family property, and do after-school recreation, and the kids get snacks and water and things like that. So thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Our next speaker? Damian Mason, then Carol Mason, then Amos White. Welcome, Speaker Mason.

Good evening, city council members. I'm Damian Mason, member of CASA, Oakland Alameda Adaptation Committee, and Alameda Backyard Growers. I'm glad to hear that we may soon have the funds to upgrade our storm drain infrastructure, implement nature-based shoreline protections, and more. California native oak trees of 10 inches or more in diameter are protected in Alameda, Oakland and other cities in California. I'm here on behalf of a number of young coastal live oaks growing along the Harbor Bay shoreline trail between Seaview Park and Harbor Bay Club. Coastal live oaks are the most valuable players of coastal protection. They stabilize shorelines with deep roots, reducing erosion. Studies show they outperform hard structures like seawalls, promoting natural resilience. In fact, they're one of the best of all plant species at protecting our shorelines because of their deep root system. This is a key part of nature's adaptation to sea level rise. The oak trees in question are only a few years old and one to three inches in diameter. Unfortunately, the current plan is to remove all of them. Given their size, they are not yet protected trees. But every small acorn has the potential to quickly grow into a mighty majestic oak. I'm confident that we can find a way to include them in the city's nature-based sea level rise adaptation plan. I personally witnessed the dedication Alameda City staff and officials have shown in building climate resilience through applied nature-based design. I trust a path can be found within the shoreline designs to preserve these trees by working them into the final design plan. Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.

Thank you.

I have a visual as well. I didn't get it within the noon timeline, but it shows you a sample of all the trees.

If you provide it to Ms. Rosalinda there, she will get it to us. Thank you. Our next speaker.

Carolyn Mason and Amos White.

Welcome, Speaker Mason.

Hello. Hi. Hello, city council members. My name is Carolyn Mason, and I grew up in Alameda and on Otis Drive. And I can remember when heavy rains happened and cars would go down the street, waves would come into our garage. And things have improved since then. But anyway, I am glad to hear that we may soon have funds to upgrade our storm drain infrastructure, implement nature-based shoreline protections, and more. California native trees use Of these, at least 10 inches or more in diameter are protected in Alameda, Oakland, and other cities in California. I'm here on behalf of a small number of young coastal live oaks growing along the Harbor Bay shoreline trail between Seaview Parkway, and Harbor Bay Club. Coastal Live Oaks are the MVPs of coastal protection. They stabilize shorelines with deep roots, reducing erosion. Studies show they outperform hard structures like seawalls, promoting natural resilience. This is a key part of nature's adaptation to... sea level rise. The oak trees in question are only a few years old and one to three inches in diameter. Unfortunately, the current plan is to remove all of them. Given their size, they are not yet protected trees. But every small acorn has the potential to quickly grow into a mighty. majestic oak. I'm confident we can find a way to fit them into the city's nature-based sea level rise adaptation plan. I've personally witnessed the dedication Alameda City staff and officials have shown to building climate resilience. through applied nature-based design i trust path can be found within the shoreline designs to preserve the trees by working them into the final design thank you for your time and attention thank you our next speaker amos white welcome speaker white

Good evening, Council, Madam Mayor. My name is Amos White. Longtime resident of Alameda, and thank you. I also serve on CAL FIRE's Urban Forest Advisory Committee and on Alameda County's Ag Advisory Committee. In my day job, I serve as the executive director for 100K Trees for Humanity, the urban reforestation nonprofit that helps cities, organizations, and institutions plant trees for climate, for equity, and for public health. Since 2020, 100K Trees has worked with the city and with the community to plant over 300 trees here in the city. We couldn't be more proud than the work that the city's doing and the investments it's making on behalf of climate, the Climate Action Plan, the Adaptation Plan. But as the previous two speakers have mentioned, It is rather disconcerting to find that these trees that have been flagged or targeted along the Bayshore, that they are coast live oaks. These are protected species. And as we are in the midst of a crisis, a climate crisis, that this city has passed a resolution acknowledging that we are in a climate emergency. The oak tree is the single largest, if you will, barrier and provider of biodiversity and barrier to the impacts of climate that we have on island, other than the coastal redwood, which is the largest carbon sequestering machine in the world. The Coast Live Oak is number two. I would urge council, as staff continues to develop these plans, the adaptation plan, advise staff to seek to protect and preserve these trees and all mature trees, especially coast live oaks on island that fall within the city's purview. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker? That was the last speaker. Oh, okay. So with that, we will close public comment. I mean, oral communications on non-agenda item. It was public comment. We will move on to the consent calendar. And these are routine items that are approved by one motion unless council members remove items for discussion. And then removed items will be called after we finish the regular agenda. And council members may speak for up to three minutes on agenda. the consent calendar items. So first off, Council, anybody want to pull a consent calendar item? Consent calendar items going once, going twice? Hearing none, does Council have any clarifying questions they'd like to ask about any items? A clarifying question doesn't require pulling the item and waiting until the end of the regular agenda to hear it. Any clarifying questions? Going once, going twice. How about public comment?

Okay, let's take... Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, I have a clarifying question.

Clarifying question. Council Member Jensen, what item are we looking at?

5M. M as in Mary? The Capital Improvement Bike Share Program.

Sure. And I believe that to the ready is, it kind of looks like intersection markings on your, I love that. That's appropriate. And so after that fashion statement, why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself?

Good evening, Mayor Ashley Ashcroft and council members. I am Lisa Foster, transportation planning manager.

So what's your question? Thank you, Manager Foster. My question is pretty straightforward. I do support the capital budget and the appropriation for the bike share pilot program. Can you just tell me when the schedule for implementation?

We are aiming for March of 2027.

Great, thank you.

And do you want to, as long as you're up here, I probably should have asked the city clerk to introduce it, but do you want to tell us the reason that this bike share program is coming to us?

Sure. It is part of the transportation demand management program for the Oakland Alameda Access Project, funded as part of that by the Alameda CTC, to give people more options for transportation while we're having construction in our tubes.

Thank you for that. All right. OK. So we were about to go to public comment on the consent calendar.

We have two speakers, so we've got three minutes each. The first is Arsha Singh Hoti and Mike Gordy.

Welcome. Come on up, everyone, both of you.

Hello, good evening, honorable council and city.

Can I move the microphone up a little for you?

I absolutely can. Good evening, everybody. You may have seen me before. My name is Arsh Singh Kothi. I'm the general manager of the Alameda TMA. I'm here to speak in support of phase two of the Oakland Alameda water shuttle and then also the bike share item that we reviewed a couple of months ago. Phase one of the water shuttle has shown very strong support and strong ridership. So we're excited to continue to be a funding partner and a managing partner with the city for OAWS. And then also bike share, like we talked about before, fills that last mile demand for intermodality. So we're also excited to work with the city as such. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Our next speaker. Mike Gorley. Welcome.

Good evening, Council. Mayor Ashcroft, great to see everybody again. Mike Gowardy, Director of Planning for San Francisco Bay Ferry, also a proud resident of Alameda, but here today in my capacity with the Ferries. And I just want to communicate my Board of Directors support for item 5L, which relates to the extension of the water shuttle project. Not only our board, but the pilot service committee that approved this item to our board are really enthusiastic and committed to seeing this project extended for another two years. So our board adopted the extension of the agreement that will be before you on the consent calendar. And they're legitimately excited about this project. This is a different way to do ferry service than anything we've tried before on the bay. And we've had other cities already come up to us and said, how do we get that deal? And what it takes is a great partner a great partner that has the the staff commitment to do the planning work to the implementation work a City and its staff that can find the partners willing to fund this project and give you another two years of funding to continue the project So those are the great ingredients we communicate to the other cities that are interested and they're present here And we're really excited to continue operating the service for another two years in partnership with you. I

And the service you're referring to is that cute little yellow boat we call Woodstock?

The small but mighty Woodstock. 32 passenger boat that carried over 1,000 people in May. First time in its existence.

In the month of May?

In a day.

In a day? 1,000 people?

We had our first 1,000 day in May. The official second year of the project actually just passed, I believe. And so our agency, in collaboration with your staff, is going to be preparing a comprehensive two-year evaluation report of the project. And we should have that ready to bring forward to the public later this fall. But sneak preview, the results are good.

Go ahead.

Also, since I'm here, I'd like to also speak to item 5M. And I'll just be very brief. On behalf of the ferry system as a whole, we're always supportive of making it easier, giving our passengers more options to get to the terminal, particularly when they don't result in more congestion for the communities that we serve. So our agency wholly supports the initiative and the efforts of the city to promote bike share in the community.

Thank you so much for that. Thank you. And just segueing on to the anniversary of Little Woodstock, there will be a birthday party with cupcakes on Friday, July 31st, down at the Whole Circle Park. I hope everybody knows that is where Woodstock leaves from. There's probably something going on on the other side, but I don't know what happens on the other side of the estuary. But 1145 to AM to 1 PM, come out and celebrate Woodstock's birthday and get a cupcake. Next speaker? That was it? Okay. All right. Then with that, council, any comments on any of the consent calendar items? And then I'm just looking for a motion and a second.

I move that we approve the consent calendar.

Motion by the vice mayor, seconded by council member Bowler. All those in favor, please. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

I will vote no on 5D.

No on 5D for Councilmember Daszak. Okay. And with that, let's take a vote noting the no on 5D for Councilmember Daszak. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? That was unanimous. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Madam Clerk, moving on. Where are we? 7-8. As the city clerk is about to introduce this item, I will just say that one of my favorite things to do is to interview for board and commission. appointments. And we have amazingly talented individuals in Alameda who apply. There's always more talented folks, and I have openings for them. But you're going to get to meet some of them tonight. So Madam Clerk, take it away.

All right, so we have adoption of resolutions re-appointing Timothy Irwin and appointing Matthew Hara as members of the Civil Service Board, re-appointing Arthur Burrito and Hank Hernandez, and appointing Rachel Lee as members of the Historical Advisory Board, re-appointing Thelma Dequin and Eric Coosby, and appointing Jerry Johnson as members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, re-appointing Tushan Amarasiri-Wardena as a member of the Library Board, and re-appointing Wesley Ratt as an appointing Eric Bell and Rhonda Sorensen as members of the Recreation and Park Commission.

So we need a motion and a second. And we can approve all of these. And some of them, as you heard, are incumbents who want to serve another term, which we're delighted by. And others are new folks. I'll move. OK, we have a motion by Council Member Daszak, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. And now, this is what I always tell you when we're interviewing. This is where the city clerk asks you to come forward. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody remotely joining us? OK, so anyone who heard your name called, I know you're out there. Come on up. And the other thing that is lovely about doing interviews is I always interview with whoever the staff person is who staffs that board or commission. And it's just so much fun to work with our staff. So come on up. And the clerk will take it from there. She knows how to do this. I don't.

And by the way, it's nice to see you in person, because otherwise we were just all on screens.

If everybody will raise your right hand. All right. Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duty upon which you are about to enter? All right.

Yay.

Yeah. Come on up.

I will start.

Good evening, City Council, and thank you, Mayor, for this opportunity. My name is Rachel Lee, and I'm honored to be appointed to the Historical Advisory Board. For the past several years, I have served as the executive director of the California Historical Radio Society, where I have the privilege of leading the preservation of one of Alameda's historic treasures, our Radio Central Museum, is in the city's original 1900 telephone exchange building. My work has allowed me to collaborate with preservation professionals, community organizations, city staff, and countless volunteers to restore the historic space, interpret history, and make that history accessible and engaging for the public. Beyond CHRS, I've spent more than 20 years working in nonprofit leadership, building partnerships, fundraising, managing community programs, and bringing people together around shared goals. History is about preserving buildings and artifacts, but it's also about preserving the stories that define who we are as a community and encouraging people to engage with those stories. Alameda has an extraordinary architectural, cultural, and technological history, and thoughtful preservation can both honor our past and strengthen our future. I look forward to listening, learning from my fellow board members, helping advise the city on matters of historic preservation, and contributing wherever I can. Thank you again for your confidence in me. I'm excited to serve the city of Alameda in this role. Thank you. This one's good?

Okay, great.

Good evening, mayor, council members. My name is Gerald Johnson, or Jerry Johnson. I really appreciate this opportunity to work with the Housing Authority and the Housing Commission. I've been a resident of Alameda since 1988. I worked with the Alameda Fire CERT team leader.

I want to hold the microphone a little closer.

I worked with the Alameda Fire CERT team leader 2005, 2009, retired organizational consultant, four years unhoused. trained with various government agencies, fiduciary over at UC Berkeley, extensive corporate knowledge. I'm looking for an accessible, affordable Alameda. I'm looking forward to working with everybody and making this a better place and keeping this the wonderful island that it's been for years. Thank you so much.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Arthur Brito. I'm a landscape designer here in town. I've had my business here in Alameda for the past 20 years doing primarily residential landscape design. And so in my everyday work, I'm always paying attention to the architecture on the property before we start designing people's yards. I truly enjoyed being a member on the HAB this past year with some really fantastic members from whom I have a lot of great respect and from whom I learned quite a bit. I'm fascinated by Alameda's rich history, particularly its architectural history. And it's one of the reasons my wife and I chose to live here and choose to stay here and raise our kids. So I'm honored by this opportunity to help preserve and maintain Alameda's rich architectural history while also allowing for future progress. And just on a personal note, any time I go into a city and I see a building, and this happens a lot here in town, Seeing a building that was obviously designed and built for a purpose and that purpose has run its course and now there's something else there and that's brought, it's breathed new life into that building and just new use that always really excites me. So seeing that just here on the Old Naval Base, seeing the new life that's brought to the hangars while also maintaining the rich history that's there. So thank you for this opportunity. I greatly appreciate it.

Thank you. Next up, yeah, come on up.

Good evening. My name is Matthew Hadda. I'd like to thank you, Mayor Ashcroft and the City Council, for appointing and approving me as the newest member of the Civil Service Board. I recently retired, effective June 30th, from public service at the county of Santa Clara and also the city and county of San Francisco. And I'm looking forward to and very excited to continue public service for the city in which I reside in a smaller capacity.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Come on up.

Thank you, Mayor and city council members. My name's Hank Hernandez. I'm the current historical advisory board chair, also the general contractor on the board. In my day job, I build new houses here in Alameda, ADUs. But my personal passion is maintaining and restoring historical homes, of which I have one as well. I've been a resident since 2001. I have a family, a couple kids in Alameda High, so very happy for the opportunity to continue to serve the city. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, hello. Welcome back.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, City Council, for having me back. Thank you for the reappointment. My name is Thelma DeCoy, and I'm a commissioner with the City of Alameda Housing Authority. And this is my reappointment. I am so honored. I have learned so much in my first round. I love Alameda. This is my community. As a young girl, my uncle used to live on Shoreline. And my mother would send us over to keep us out of trouble from Oakland. And so this has always been my community. I moved here in 2010. And I always wanted to find out how I could serve the city of Alameda. just by luck i met you and someone nominated me through that through the housing authority and it's just been a blast i just my heart dances to be involved in the wonderful things the great things the new developments the existing developments it's like In a world where all these ugly things are going on, so many great things are happening in Alameda. So thank you again for having me.

Thank you. Come on up, Wes. Hi. Nice to see you all. You brought your son, too, right?

He's right back there.

Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Wes Radies, and I want to thank you all for the opportunity to continue serving on the Recreation and Park Commission. It's been an absolute honor to serve as the commission's chair over the last year, and I very much appreciate the confidence and the trust that you've placed with myself and my colleagues on the commission. It's my hope that you'll continue to view the commission as an extension of the council's public engagement for parks and recreation issues so that these spaces and programs can remain a critical part of the civic infrastructure that we all value so much as our means. I look forward to continuing the work. Thank you for the opportunity. And in keeping with the role, if the light holds, I'm headed right back to a park later this evening. So thanks very much.

Very nice. Take the family. Thank you so much. Hello, hello.

Hello and good evening. First, let me thank Mayor Ashcraft, Director Long, and the city council for selecting and trusting me to serve this wonderful city. As I mentioned in my first meeting with the mayor and Director Long, I consider parks to be the hidden treasure of any city. Good, clean, safe, and usable parks that build communities. They increase property value. And they support healthy citizens, young and old alike. My name is Eric Bell. I have been a practicing certified public accountant for nearly 30 years. Yes, parks have helped me to look young. In addition to leading my own accounting practice, I hold full-time positions as an accounting professor at Las Placidas College and also at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. I'm also very active in our city. I serve on the Alameda Youth Basketball League board, and I'm also a basketball official for high school and middle school games here in the city of Alameda. I'm a 15-year resident, but my wife and my two younger kids are lifetime residents of Alameda. So I look forward to bringing my passion for our city as well as my fiscal proudness as an accounting and finance professional to support the Parks and Recreation Department and the city of Alameda.

Thank you so much. Good to meet you in person. And here's someone I've known since our kids were in preschool. Yes. Go ahead and bring the microphone down if you want, Rhonda.

Thank you. Hi. Good evening. My name is Rhonda Sorenson. I'm born and raised in Alameda. My family is all here. Our daughters went through all the parks, and now we have five grandchildren that live in Alameda that are utilizing the parks and all the services that Alameda offers. Thanks for picking me, and I'm honored to help out when I can. and be part of the Recreation Commission. Thank you so much.

And as you can see, everybody, just from listening, I mean, these are all talented individuals. Many of them are doing very busy things. Editing journals, just full-time jobs. And yet, to a person, what interested them is they wanted to find a way to serve their community. They had a skill or a talent they thought they could share. And now I'm finding in conversations with folks who are coming up at the end of their second term as an appointed Board of Commission member, they want to know, Mayor, how can I continue to serve the city? And of course, I do say consider running for public office. I'll talk to you. But it is so heartwarming to me as a mayor. And it is part of what is so special about this city, that people really deeply care. I was talking to Andrew Thomas, our former planning director. He's been helping me with planning board interviews. And I was saying there was a time when our boards and commissions were made up mostly of retired people who had the time to spend. And they did. And they were maybe not as ethnically diverse as our community is today. And then something shifted. And maybe it was the pandemic when people were staying home more. But there was just this resurgence in interest in serving the community. I'll take a little credit for the newspaper articles and social media we put out encouraging people to apply. But my goodness, we have so many talented, amazing individuals. It was a pleasure to meet all of you, even the ones we weren't able to find a place for. But you should feel very good about your city. We've got a strong base of support. So thank you, thank you, thank you, all of you. All right. Now, moving along, that was 7A. So we are moving on to 7B. Did I get that right, Madam Clerk? Yes, you did. Will you introduce that item for us, please? Yes.

Adoption of a 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 eliminate the offices of elected city auditor and city treasurer, establishing the policies and procedures for such an election, requesting that the county of Alameda conduct such an election, and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure.

I'm sorry. OK. So how should we proceed on this one?

So this item is another charter amendment that was brought forward by the council subcommittee. And tonight, you're considering it. And then you will address the argument.

Good night, everyone. Thanks for coming. This um What we're doing tonight just to be clear because I think there's maybe been a little Confusion, but I want to make clear what it is and what it isn't we're doing. This is something that the charter subcommittee which was Vice mayor Michelle prior and myself. It was one of a list of recommendations that We are making for the voters to decide. But this is something that had come up back in 2019 when two of my previous council colleagues were a charter subcommittee. And I don't quite remember why it didn't move forward and go on the ballot then. It is laid out in the staff report that when the city charter that we operate under was adopted in 1937, the auditor and treasurer position were included, and the salary for each was fixed at $3,600 a year. The same salary has been in place since 1937. But in addition, over the years, these two office holders also receive benefits. And so for the past 15 years, the total compensation has been over $470,000 for each office. But so this is what we will bring to the voters if the council votes to allow the voters to weigh in on this. Because a lot has changed since 1937. For instance, there are now many laws in place that govern how municipal finances are handled. And as far as auditing and reporting functions, heavily governed by state law. And the other thing that we deal with is these are city funds. Is this the best use of city funds? We know from research the city clerk's office did, and thank you for that, that there is no city in Alameda County that has an elected treasurer. And only two cities have elected auditors, Berkeley and Oakland. And those two individuals perform a different function than ours does. But those are the reasons that the vice mayor and I And when we did our meetings, we did it with the city attorney and the city clerk to go over these items. And that's why we thought this was worthy of bringing forward as a possible ballot measure. But Vice Mayor Pryor, I want to turn it over to you.

Yeah, I was going to say the reason why I'm in support of this charter amendment. But I just want to emphatically state that this position is in no way a reflection of Kevin Kennedy and Kevin Kearney, who currently hold these positions. They both have served this community diligently and with integrity. Not about that. In collaboration, making this decision for the city, I always endeavor for any decision to take the personalities out of my thought process. So when I just look at just the positions, they're currently, because of the laws and also how we do our own practices, they're redundant. The city regularly uses third party auditors. And the city has a finance department that regularly reports to council in public meetings. Again, this has been said, but over the past few decades, many regulations and laws have been implemented to protect residents from impropriety and to increase transparency. And also, as the mayor noted, Alameda currently is one of the few cities that has not faded out these positions. And then again, while this is my stated position, the vote is to put this charter amendment on the ballot. And residents will weigh in. I mean, they may agree or they may not agree. But I do believe it should be on the ballot.

And I'll just add one last thing, that one of the considerations was we always look at the financial impact of an item. And so eliminating these two offices will decrease the city's general fund expenditures by at least $84,000 per fiscal year, because that is the cost of the benefits that we've, salary and benefits, I guess, that we've been paying. to the auditor and the treasurer annually. And so then the city council as a body can decide, well, is there another way we might spend all or some of that $84,000 if we wanted to, say, do an audit of a particular city program or system. That's what mayors of Alameda County know each other. And the mayor of Berkeley furnished me with the website for their auditor and the studies that that auditor has done over the years and the dashboard, keeping track of them. We could invest in studies on particular topics, topic matters, subject matters, if we chose to do that. And that's for a future council to decide. But what the vice mayor and I are just bringing forward to the council today is, should we let the voters have a say in how public money is spent? by considering whether to keep this position. So do we let the voters decide or do we not let the voters decide? The merits of should we keep them or should we not, that's for a campaign if this even gets to the ballot. Anything further, Madam Vice Mayor? No. Okay. So then we'll start with any clarifying questions from the council, and then we'll go to our public comment. Clarifying questions, council? Council Member Jensen.

Thank you. Thank you for mentioning the need and the relevance of the positions. You mentioned that there's been new laws established recently to provide independent oversight of financial transactions and audits. And I'm just wondering what those laws are and how they pertain to Alameda.

Oh, well, the point was since 1937. And I would look to actually the city manager and the city attorney to give me some specifics or even general on that. But how do our practices differ now?

I'm just going to go general. There's the budget piece and there's the investment portfolio. The council does review the city's investment portfolio. That is a newer requirement. I don't know what year that was made a requirement, but cities now have to disclose and review the city's investment policy annually with at a public meeting. The budget gets reviewed every six months. And I don't know if our finance director is here in the audience tonight. I see Ross in the back. But there are government accounting standards that come online every year related to how city funding and spending is reported, both as part of the audit process and in budgeting. So I don't know if Finance Director McCarthy would add to that, but we talk.

If you just help answer Council Member Jensen's question, like what laws are in place now that didn't exist in 1937 before any of us were here, but that pertain to oversight of the city's finances?

So in the past 80 years, or however long it's been, sure. So in the late 80s, the Government Accounting Standards Board was created. We call it GASB, and these are basically – they're the oversight of the accounting practices in local government. They issue statements. We're at GASB about 105, I think, is the last one that's done, and these are just – consistent updates that we make to the practice of accounting, our financial statements. So you've probably seen it's like 300 pages long or so, and a lot of that is due to the GASB standards that have been implemented over the last 40 years since the Government Accounting Standards Board was opened. Our most recent one was 101, GASB 101, which was had to do with employee deferrals for payroll, so vacation time and sick time and that kind of thing. So we could get into a lot more detail if you want, but it's a fun journey to go down if you'd like.

Well, that's very helpful. And I don't have any questions about the investment policy, because I've actually worked with the treasurer on the city's investment policy in the past since I've been elected. But I did want to follow up on the GASB standards for audit and spending. And I just want to get clarity that, the change in standards, how does that ensure that the city council is always aware of any findings or deficiencies in the public audit?

Yeah, so we get what's called a memo of internal control from our external auditors. We call it the MOIC. And we report that yearly to the city council. after all of our audits are done for that fiscal year. So our last fiscal year deadline is March 31, and that's called the single audit. In the city, we have eight to nine external audits, depending on. And so those are reported yearly to the council with findings. Not lucky, but we've been very good recently in not having any findings. We'll have other matters that, you know, hey, you can fix this, you can tighten this up a bit or do that, but we haven't had any findings in the past three years.

Thank you. And then for you, the city manager, or for the director of finance, then would you say that these two elected oversight offices are irrelevant and the city has not ever received any benefit?

I'd rather not comment, but if you'd like to.

Yeah, I mean, they're an elected office in the charter, and we respect the work that's done. I think the point that our finance director was making and that I was making is that there have been a lot of new transparency requirements and checks. And so that's probably where I would end the comment. I value the input of our auditor and treasurer But I also know that we have a number of systems in place currently. A lot of the cities throughout the county don't have those positions and are under the same legal requirements that we are.

Thank you. And my last question for the subcommittee, but they may defer it to you, city manager. Mayor and Vice Mayor, you mentioned that there's cost savings through elimination of $31,000 annual salary and benefits for each position. I was wondering if there's any cost savings ever associated with these positions, if the city's ever had any savings or any financial benefits.

Not that I could speak to.

Unfortunately, I can't speak to that either. I would imagine that throughout the years, there has been collaborative conversations about the investment policies, investment procedures. But I can't speak to it specifically.

Good. Well, no, I just wanted to clarify, there's just the cost savings, and there's been no savings or accruals to the city through these oversight positions.

Thank you. Those are my questions. And Vice Mayor? I just want to make an aside comment that these are elected positions. It is not guaranteed. There is no job requirement for these elected positions. So theoretically, in five years, we could just have somebody who's very likable and super fun and wins an election, but really aren't Any help? So I guess that just goes back to this comment is not based on the work that has been done prior to this. It's just thinking about the future, that it is essentially redundant, and that there is no qualifications to even hold these elected positions.

Is there? Oh, thank you. Maybe I'm wrong. Sorry. Just for clarification, Madam Clerk, I think the auditor is required to be a CPA. Is that correct?

There are requirements in the charter, but for both. For both.

OK, then.

I misspoke, and I apologize.

I'm sorry. To that, let me follow up. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So with regard to my question about the salary and the savings then, is that the urgency? Is that what is the urgency for eliminating these positions now? In order to save money.

At a time when every city, including ours, is facing budget deficits, when we don't have the funds we need to do a lot of things. And I mean to say with regard to public safety, our homelessness response, infrastructure, I could go on and on. I think it behooves us as part of the fiduciary duty we hold as elected representatives not to make the decision. not to decide for the voters. We wouldn't be able to do that anyway. But simply give it to the voters to decide, because this is public money. And I do think that for the amount of work expended and then for $84,000 a year, I just think that there might be ways that if we had that money, we could either put it to other programs or maybe some other fiscal oversight if we thought that was necessary. But I agree with what our finance director said about all the different things that we do. I was just interviewed, I think it was last week, by the managing partner of the auditing firm that we use. And I do that every year. And the other thing, I didn't add this, It's considered best practices, at least this is what I'm told. I just came from two days of League of California City Board meetings last week, that every five years, you should actually go out for an RFP for a new auditing firm. It shouldn't be the same firm over and over again. So that's what the league is in the process of doing. Or I think with Alameda County Transportation Commission, who happens to use the same auditors, they switch out the managing partners every five years because it's considered financial best practices. And I think Ross and Mr. McCarthy is giving me thumbs up. Do you want to come and speak to that?

Yes, we do go out to RFP every five years for either the same auditor or a new auditor. And then if it is the same auditor, we will switch out of partners. Why is that? I don't know if it's in one of the GASBs. I can't really tell you the reason for it, but we do it out of practice.

I was told it was financial best practice at our board meeting. Yeah. Yeah, so I hope I answered your question. Did I? Thank you. Yeah. And then I did want to ask the city manager who just came from being the city manager of Pleasanton, does Pleasanton have an outside treasurer and auditor?

The city of Pleasanton does not. But we use a lot of the same services that the city of Alameda does with our internal staff work.

Thank you.

Other clarifying questions? Council, Council Member Bowler.

Oh, thank you. Just trying to get to the core question that I think Council Member Jensen started, which is what problem are we trying to solve tonight? I can't imagine it's simply saving the money, because these roles have been around for a long time, and they have some important functions. So is the concern also that there's two offices, that there's outdated duties, lack of efficiency, lack of accountability? What is the underlying concern that led to this?

So we were a charter amendment subcommittee. And there is a charter provision that creates both the elected treasurer and the elected auditor. And so we are saying, let the people decide if they want to continue that. And so I suspect that there is a proposal to maybe do a hybrid and decide to remove one and go forward with the other. I think it would be most respectful to the voters to let them decide whether to amend the charter, because that's the only way the charter gets amended.

So thank you. I have some questions about the types of auditing that is done with the outside auditing firm. I don't know if our finance director could could address those, but I took a look at some of the main financial audits through our firm for the last five years. So categories of audits that I'm not sure are included in that, but they might be through that firm, through different audits, or in different ways. Do we, for example, use the outside resources for any type of performance audits?

Not particularly, no.

Do we use them for any type of operational audits?

No, they do not. No.

OK. What about efficiency and economy reviews, like value for money type audits?

Generally not. Those types of activities are usually uncovered during our financial audit.

And procurement contract administration type audits, is that something that these firms help us with?

It is tested during our financial statement audits, but not particularly.

What about capital project and infrastructure audits?

Ditto. It is tested during our financial statement audits, but not focused on, I guess.

OK. And then so it's tested, but it's not getting a vigorous treatment in the audit. Is that fair to say?

Yeah. Sorry.

OK.

Well, I mean, I take that back. It's a materiality level, right? So there's sample testing that are done for capital projects, for example. And so the funding sources are correct. The purchasing, how it went out to RFP, those are audited items or are sampled from the fiscal year.

Do some of these reviews look at internal controls? Is that something that gets reviewed often?

Yes, they review those every year.

What about follow-up audits, trying to figure out whether or not prior findings have been corrected?

We do that every year as well.

Fraud risk reviews, are they looking for potential for fraud? They do all the time, yes.

They ask me about it every year.

And what about policy effectiveness reviews? For example, looking at is the city's investment policy still appropriate or not? Do they look at that?

We have an individual agreed upon procedures that check the investment policy. So yes, we have an individual audit for the investment policy.

It seems to me that the drafters of the charter, going back many years, were really concerned about this issue of independence. And what strikes me in the staff report on this is that it doesn't really explain, other than these outside firms, how we would have sufficient independent oversight Is that something that the subcommittee can speak to in other words? if both these offices are eliminated what's going to replace that oversight and who would When would that begin who would exercise that function?

The Independent oversight is something that the outside auditing firms provide I I'm not sure you want. Independent auditing firms come and they look at what the city's finances are and all the things Mr. McCarthy told you. So they're outside. They're independent. We change them every five years because that's considered best practices.

I just don't know if the committee looked at the question of what electoral independence does in terms of, and other cities have, for example, appointed auditors that report to the council. In other cities, there's appointed auditors, treasurers. And there's different ways of looking at independence, but oftentimes it's- In Alameda County? In all over California, there's quite a few elected treasurers, for example. But there's also appointed auditors and appointed treasurers. And I guess I'm wondering if the committee looked at and assessed whether or not the independence feature would be sufficient with the outside auditing firms and if there is any type of look at that, because it sounds like some of these audits are not doing the full array of what could be audited. So that's the question.

I mean, I too met with the auditor. They do like eight or nine different audits They were extremely thorough, and they're all different kind of audits. I mean, I wrote them down because I was taking notes. Our third party auditor, they sent us emails like, would you like to meet with us? The city's auditor. Yes, the city's auditor.

And the outside independent Mays and Associates.

Mays and Associates, yes. And I don't have the notes with me, but they're at home, because that's where the meeting was. It was online. And we spent like an hour. Yeah, just really walked me through the process, and it's really in-depth.

Did you not get the letter from Mays?

Yeah. Yeah, I did. And just the different various kind of audits that they perform. And then we did talk about malfeasance. And they said, yes, we're given, we just kind of look at the numbers and we look at patterns. And then we say, hey, these are the suggestions you need to make in best practices. And then they go back in their view that those things were followed up on. Yeah, it was very thorough. I mean, I'm not a CPA, so I would have to look at my notes to be really specific. I felt very confident in knowing that they are going to be rotated every five years. It was so robust. And it's a team of people doing multiple stuff that are spending hours on this. And we're paying for that. And so my thing is that these positions just seem outdated and unnecessary just based on all the stuff that we're currently paying for and the way that the best practices have been updated in the finance department, I think, to reduce things like malfeasance and to increase transparency. And I... I've only been on council a year and a half, so I can't go back 10 years. But I cannot speak to anything that was ever brought to my attention that our electeds noted. And it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm just saying it wasn't brought to my attention. I just want to be very clear of like, oh, One of these two people or these two people noticed something that the team of finance officers didn't notice or that the team of the auditing third party team didn't notice. Again, it's really just, in my opinion, that it's just outdated and redundant and we're paying for it. And it's because we're doing it because we've always done it. So let's continue. I disagree with that. But again, the voters might say, you know what? You're crazy. We're going to keep these people. And that's fine. I think we need to leave it up to the voters.

And Council Member Bowler, to the points you raised, It might be that a future council decides, we want to hire a consultant to look into the effectiveness of our homelessness response, say, for example. I would argue that there is more value in using that money and choosing a consultant with a specialty in that particular field as opposed to having a single individual to sort of be a person for all seasons. If you really want a specialty of a particular system or program or something. really like to move forward and leave it to the voters to decide. I think there could be a robust campaign against if people feel that, no, this is just as relevant as it was in 1937. But it might be that there are new ways of doing things and more effective economical ways of spending our money. We did put a lot of thought into this. And I appreciated the vice mayor bringing this up. It's not personal. These are folks who have their devoted, engaged members of the community. They've done a great job. But the question is, is that still relevant for us now? Especially as you know our budget, we just don't have the money to do everything we'd like to do. So rather than pick and choose, well, let's get one. I'd say let the voters decide if they want to amend that charter provision.

So yeah, thank you. I appreciate your response and the work that the subcommittee did. I appreciate what the vice mayor was saying about the value of Mays, the outside firm. And I met with a representative from the firm as part of the lead up to this meeting. I do think that it's a good question, though, for our actual city officers, to our city auditor, to our city treasurer. What does your current duties add? How do they add the greatest value? And what duties maybe no longer make sense? Well, how has this evolved over time? Each of them has served in these roles for decades. And I would really love to hear from them and hear what they think in terms of the independence of their functions, if it can be replaced to the outside firms the way it's structured now, or if we should consider some different approach.

Well, we are about to go into public comment.

Well, I would make a motion to allow our elected city representatives to answer some questions and have a little bit of minutes of time allotted to them so that we can understand their roles a little bit better. I'd ask that we provide them each with five minutes. And we can ask them questions at this time. And I think that would be helpful.

Do you want to second that, Council Member Desai?

At this point, I'd like to ask my questions. Go ahead.

And then I'd be happy to answer. Maybe turn back to you. Yeah, let us finish with clarifying council questions, too. Sorry. Go on, Council Desai.

So the first question that I have is for the city attorney. And while I suspect you do not have the city charter open in front of you, is it correct to say that The first section in Article II, Section 2-1, specifies five elective officers. Seven, actually. Sorry, I did my math wrong. Seven elective officers, four council members, the mayor, the auditor, and the treasurer. The 2-1 specifically begins, the following elective officers are hereby established. My question to the city attorney is, who elects the auditor and the treasurer? It's a very basic question.

Sure, council members, the voters of the city of Alameda.

So the people of Alameda, the voters. Does that mean that it is to the voters of Alameda that not just the mayor and the council members, but the auditor and the treasurer, is it correct to say that it is to the voters that the elective officers are accountable to? That is correct. Thank you. Follow up question. On? I believe on Article 7 of the city charter specifies the roles and responsibilities of the city manager. This is a question for the city attorney still. In Section 7-2, dot C, the city manager shall have the power, and it shall be their duty, under C, quote, to appoint, discipline, and remove all officers and employees of the city under their, that is the city manager, under their jurisdiction subject to the civil services requirement. Is it correct to say that under this city manager form of government specified in Article VII, that department heads, such as the finance director, is accountable to the city manager

that is reports to the city manager that is generally correct any department head that it's appointed by the city manager is accountable to the city manager there are of course department heads that do not report to the city manager set forth in the Charter both appointed and elected okay great thank you now just a little bit more clarifying questions

Under Article IV, which is the article devoted to the city auditor, Is it correct to say that Section 4-1 specifies the accounting requirements for persons who wish to hold the auditor position, the elected auditor position? Is it correct to say that the section reads, the auditor shall have, at the time of their election, a degree in accounting or business administration or be licensed as a certified public accountant and five years of accounting experience. Is it correct to say that those requirements are specified for the elective auditor in the city charter currently?

That is correct.

And with regard to the requirements of the city treasurer, is it correct to say that the first section reads, the treasurer shall have had, at the time of their election, five years' experience in administering investment programs and be licensed as a chartered financial analyst or certified financial planner?

That is correct.

So generally, do you recall in your time as a city attorney any council members having either those kind of qualifications specified for the treasurer or those kinds of qualifications specified for the auditor?

I can't say that I know every possible qualification of a council member, so it's hard for me to comment clearly on what every council member's degree is and whether every council member holds whatever certification they might hold.

Great. Well, thank you, City Attorney Ibn Shen. I appreciate that. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. As a clarifying question to Council, I

Yes. So Director Ross, how many people work in the finance department?

We have 18 FTEs. 18. OK.

Thank you. OK. Thank you. You can sit down. OK. Council Member Boller, you were making a motion to allow both the treasurer and the auditor to have five minutes of speaking time. I'm OK with that. It's a motion by Council Member Boller, seconded by Council Member Daszak. And we need four affirmative votes. We might have five. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. OK. So shall we call them first, in fact? Sure. OK. I'm assuming they put in speaking .. They did. OK.

Kevin Kennedy was first and Kevin Kearney second.

All right. Welcome, Speaker Kennedy.

Madam Mayor and City Council, I'm Kevin Kennedy, the City Treasurer. I did prepare comments. I think they'll stay within a relatively brief period, but I'm happy to hang out here and answer questions as long as you'd like. I want to start out by saying something that I think you all know. I have no intention of running for this office again when my term expires. I've given 26 years to public service. I've served this city that I live in, that I've raised a family in, that I operate a business in very proudly. But my time with this is done. So I am not here tonight to try to preserve my job, preserve my benefits. This isn't at all about me. This is about a position that as a resident, as someone who has firsthand experience with it, I think is critical for this government to have. So I just wanted to put that out there so it's very clear as to what my approach is with this. That said, I stand before you tonight really shocked and dismayed. At a time where every citizen wants more transparency and more accountability in government, this proposal does the exact opposite. It blindfolds the public. Now, back in 2019, you evaluated the same mistake. But back then, you practiced good due diligence. Back then, you spoke to us. Back then, you did some public outreach. And you correctly concluded that eliminating our roles was a dangerous idea. Tonight, zero public engagement. We only found out about this whole thing when it was published on the agenda. No conversations with any of you. Again, I'm going to hang out and answer questions. But I can tell you, had we had those conversations, a lot of the questions that you posed tonight would have been answered. That said, Alameda does not just need financial experts. We need independent elected watchdogs. The ballot box is the only guarantee that gives taxpayers a say in who guards their money. Now let's talk about what happens when you silence those watchdogs. And I'm going to give you just a couple examples in the interest of time. You remember the failed telecom venture at our utility. It was the auditor and I who spoke up about that, sounded the alarm, pointed out the catastrophic losses that were happening within our utility. very easily could have taken down the whole darn utility. We got a lot of pushback on that. When the city manager tried to bail them out with a $7 million loan from the general fund, we spoke up and blocked that. That $7 million, it would have gone down the same rat hole that the other $40 million of city money had already gone down. Do we save the city money? I hope that answers it. Did we just pay right there for 200 years of our service? Yes. We took the heat. We fought the fights. We took the pushback. But we did it to protect the taxpayers and protect this community, because that's what we were elected to do. And that's what independence does. We did it again when it came to the pensions, retiring medical, and deferred maintenance, an issue that you're dealing with right now. We co-chaired the Fiscal Sustainability Committee, which was the first time this city actually took a hard look at the long-term trajectory of finance. And actually, it was the first time that the issue of deferred maintenance was even quantified. Because we did all of that, these issues now come to the forefront. Now. Our critics say, well, you don't make policy. And they're absolutely right. We don't make policy. We force better policy. Our friction creates new solutions. The telecom failure and selling that, building pension and OPEB trusts, mapping out the deferred maintenance issue and starting to address it. Those happened because we had the personal courage and the mandate of voters to speak up and do the right thing. Now, to look at my role as treasurer specifically, municipal finance is not the same thing as investment experience, which I've had for 40 years. many, many different finance directors. They're all excellent at municipal finance. But if you look at the job description, investment expertise Being a certified financial planner is not something you consider when you hire somebody. For 26 years, I brought that specialized knowledge to the city. I apologize. I didn't do three minutes, but I'll continue to move along, and I'm very close to the end of this.

I think it was five minutes, didn't it?

Oh, beautiful. Did you time it for five? I'll stick to that.

Are you wrapping up? Because that was your five minute timer.

Was that five?

But the motion was also for us to be able to ask questions, right?

Yeah.

Let me give you a- If you're wrapping up quickly, that will work. Because they did want to ask some questions.

So on the treasurer job, I worked with Councilmember Jensen. These are just recent examples. On the investment policy, I think we reached a conclusion that satisfied the community. and put this policy in a place that the community can be proud of. Just recently, I worked with our finance director, Ross, to deploy cash that was basically earning nothing. Now, it's going to generate millions of dollars in incremental interest for the city. So again, is it worth spending a little bit of money for this? I think it's foolish not to, quite honestly. I'll stay up here all night and give you more examples if you want to ask me about them, but I thought those were a couple that were very relevant and went back to the discussion you were having earlier. Other cities don't do this. And I'll say this very quickly. Other cities don't do this. That's an argument. Well, this is outdated. Good. Let them lag behind us. We're in better shape than most other cities. A lot of our neighboring cities are not examples I'd ever want to hold us to. Is that because we have an unarmed treasurer? It sure doesn't hurt. I'm not going to take full credit, but we are in a much better place. We are protected. We have independent oversight. We have an OPEB trust. We save money towards that. Most cities don't do that. Are we stupid for doing that? Absolutely not. We're doing it the right way. And having these positions is the right way to do it. So I'm going to stop there, because I've already gone over my time. I appreciate the accommodation. But I will hang out here as long as you'd like and answer any questions you have.

Let's have some questions and answers. Who wants to ask a question? Council Member Bowler? Yeah.

Yeah. It just appears to me, thank you for your service. It really appears to me that there the proposed charter amendment is based in some history. Because originally with the city, the treasurer, I think my knowledge, and yours is probably going to be much better, is that the treasurer was involved in many things, in financial things. And over time, a lot of those functions got taken into the finance department. So my question is, what? What of the original duties still remain? And what do you feel, among those, are the most important for the independent oversight that you're describing? DAVID B.

Sure, sure. I'll remind you that laws existed when Orange County blew themselves up, that laws existed during the financial crisis. Independent oversight is designed to see where laws are skirted or compromised. It's not new that we have laws. There were laws in 1937. Maybe they're different today, but there were laws then too. Having independent oversight is hugely important. I've been doing this for 26 years. The laws have changed, but it doesn't make the job any less relevant, and it never will. That's why organizations have independent auditors and independent financial people involved, because it's not just about a law. If it was simple as following a law, then companies wouldn't get in trouble, cities wouldn't get in trouble.

It seems like the charter specifies that the core duty for the treasurer is to guide that investment policy and review it annually. Is that fair to say? Yes, absolutely. And has that taken the majority of your time in this role in the last few years, or are there other things as well that are taking up a substantial portion of time?

That's a great question. And the answer to that is no, it is not the majority of what I've spent my time on. What I've spent my time on are things that, quite honestly, I don't trumpet publicly. They're spending time with city staff, trying to help them develop cash flow models and figure out excess monies that we can deploy more effectively. They're consulting with staff on how to invest OPEB trusts and new funds, a lot of different projects. I've been on task force studying the pension issue. I've co-chaired a financial task force. What we do goes far beyond those charter descriptions. And a lot of that is at the direction of the city manager or the council. We were involved last time a bond issue was put together. We were involved in the formation of that to ensure that it was financially responsible for the voters. We have never shied away from doing that. We are always there. And quite honestly, a question you asked earlier, I know you don't want to go out on a limb on it. I'm going to go out on a limb on it, because I've been doing this for a long time. I don't believe there's ever been a certified financial planner as a city council member. I don't know if Kearney can address, but I'm not sure there's been a CPA. But I can tell you I've had conversations with almost every council member and mayor over the last 26 years that I've been in office helping with financial questions and financial issues. Now, can a staff member answer that? Could somebody else? I guess so. Can they come to me knowing they're going to get an honest, transparent answer that they may or may not feel as confident with from other places? I believe so. And I've conducted myself in that manner. So I think it's been a really good resource. Sorry, that was a long-winded answer to a short question.

Well, and I guess I just want to state that I appreciate what you said about the process issue in terms of being contacted. You and I did speak with two fairly substantial phone calls since this came out on the agenda. I wasn't on the subcommittee, but I appreciate what you're saying. I'm trying to get to the heart of is this really the only way? Is this the most effective way for a city like Alameda? You heard me comment before, other cities have appointed treasurers. Is that something that you've spent much time looking at? Which type, which model for cities makes the most sense, or not?

I have not until this came out. So a couple of weeks of deep thought. I would tell you that Councilmember Daszak's questions and thoughts there are spot on. There's a huge difference between independents accountable to the voters and independence accountable to the city manager or to the council. And I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. It's just a very, very different position. And anybody who's followed our work knows that there are times where not everybody agrees with us. And some people don't like what we're saying. But it needs to be said. And you cannot get that from somebody that is reporting to anyone but the public, in my opinion. And again, this is not about me and my job, believe me. This is about that role and that level of independence. For $30,000 a year, it is the best money you'll ever spend, very honestly. Thank you.

Other questions? I have one. Mr. Kennedy, have you run against other opponents in the past?

Yeah. I don't remember what year. 2018 or something. Yeah, we had an opponent, which was fun.

I think if I recall correctly, for the most part, you've run unopposed over the years.

Yes. Yes. And I'd like to think that's because we do a very good job.

And I do appreciate your service. You talked about the OPEB trust. I'm all in on that. And I brought that idea to the city council from a League of California Cities meeting. And I think I got Councilmember to go along with us. And it was one of the best things we've done. But I do remember bringing that to the city council.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And hopefully you remember, too, and honestly, I don't remember who was on councilor at the time, but you remember the conversations when we initially started to discuss that and the pushback that we got. I mean, we've been verbally, physically threatened. This isn't hyperbole. Talking about that was a huge personal risk, professional risk for us, but it was important. What you guys did with it was excellent. Would that have happened? in a different format, I don't know, but it happened in this format. And any of those examples, and I can give you a dozen more, are well worth having somebody in this position.

Thank you. Other questions, Council? Vice Mayor Pryor.

Yeah, it's related to a question Councilmember Boller said, because you had spoke to what's in the charter. And if this doesn't happen, or if the voter says it does happen, but the voters say, no, we still want these offices to exist, but the charter just says that the treasurer should just review the financial policy. That is all that is required. So there is no... I mean, that is what that person would do. And so when I'm just looking at the position, based on what the charter says, what is the position doing that the financial team isn't already doing?

I think I just gave you a couple of really good examples. I mean, we have a financial team at the utility. We had a financial team at the city at the time. Neither of them called out those issues. We've had a budgeting process for 100 years here. Nobody was calling out those long-term liabilities. I'm not going to say it was because of lack of competence, but certainly the role of independence that we have, where again, we're not reporting to anybody except the voters, I think enables that type of stuff. I would tell you quite honestly that this role could be expanded, that given a thoughtful approach to what an auditor and a treasurer could do by charter, that charter should be more robust. A lot of what we have done would benefit the people if it was actually in the charter. We've done it at the request of council and mayors and city managers and the public. But it sure wouldn't hurt to put something in there. we're doing the opposite tonight. Basically, the message you send everybody is we don't need oversight. We don't need independence. And I think that's the wrong message, personally. But I think there is certainly a way to make it better. And I'd love to be engaged in that because, again, I think these rules are hugely important.

If there's no further, you please sit down.

I just want to make sure to ask this basic question. When you do your work as the city treasurer, do you feel that you're doing the work on behalf of the people of Alameda, or do you feel that you're like a staff member of City Hall?

No, no. It's completely independent. And I have full respect for city staff. Doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye, but I respect the job they do. And I think I've hopefully had fair relations or good relations with all of them. They're part of the team too.

So you feel you're accountable to the people of Alameda?

Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think the actions we've taken over the last, Almost 30 years would demonstrate that. Thank you. Yeah, thanks.

Council Member Jensen. Thank you. Thank you, Treasurer Kennedy. I wanted to ask you about your relationships outside of Alameda. As elected officials in Alameda, Council members, the mayor mentioned going to the League of Cities often. And as council members, we work with other city councils and learn what best practices and how to implement and develop policies here in Alameda that might be working elsewhere. And I bring this up because you and I worked together on the investment policy. And at that time, you worked with our county auditor, Mr. Levy. you got him to provide some information. We talked a little bit about it. And I just wanted to ask you about that type of thing, or whether or not that's something that you bring in that is not otherwise available.

Yes. Yeah, I operate in that world. That's my paying job. So that's what I do all day long. I also pay attention to what's going on around us. I also tap the resources that we do have. We have money managers that actually do the buying and selling in the portfolio, and I tell them, hey, if we're going to pay you to do this job, I need to be able to pick your brain on things. By the way, you should also, after your fee, make us more money than we would have made on our own, but certainly use them as a resource.

And that was helpful to me. So with regard to that, and with regard to changing circumstances as well, can you comment on anything that you may have done with regard to our investment policy, both during the recession and during the pandemic, that might have been an independent source of information and support for the city? Sure.

Yeah. Well, I'll give you a couple examples. I'll try to directly answer that question. So during the financial crisis, of course, everything was chaotic. I spoke to council publicly and privately about the status of our portfolio, where we were at, a very frank discussion about our risks, where things stood. That was a time when most people had more questions than they did answers, but I knew it was my obligation to try to provide some clarity to what was going on, and we navigated that situation very well. During COVID, it was a little bit different. I mean, during COVID, and I'll try to keep this very brief, during COVID, I saw a few surrounding cities start to do some contingency budgeting. What happens if this crisis, if this lockdown continues? And so I reached out unsolicited to the city manager and said, I think we need to do this. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he had a lot on his plate at that point, but he didn't necessarily agree with me. I said, that's fine. I'll do it by myself. I mean, I literally spent a weekend plus building my own model, running it through some of the assumptions that I saw from surrounding cities in terms of what's going to happen to sales tax and taught and all the other things that are getting whacked when everyone has to stay home. Ultimately, the value of this was seen. We pulled in a budget expert who did much nicer spreadsheets than I did. But I think, Mayor Ashcroft, if you remember, I spoke to you in council about that. And I think they termed it a worst case scenario and hopefully not as bad case scenario. But I think that benefited the city hugely to be prepared. Because it turned out we were locked down for, it felt like, forever. I guess I don't toot my horn enough, but I would tell you that that really did initiate for me.

Thank you.

Sure.

OK. Thank you so much. All right. And let's call Kevin Kearney up next. OK. Five minute timer, more or less. Good evening.

Hello. I just have a couple comments, I guess. First of all, I guess of the procedure of this, back in 2019, as Kevin mentioned, there was some exchange. We had some public comment. And I've never talked to you, Michelle, about what I do, ever. But you're on a committee that's going to eliminate my position. Marilyn, I very rarely talk to you. And you're the head of the committee that's going to eliminate this position. I don't think that's good governance at all. I mean, everybody talks about good governance and independence and democracy. I don't see how that's democracy at all. I really don't. But having said that, I think it's very clear by some of the responses that you've given to the treasurer in your comments, you really don't know what's going on very much, what the treasurer does or what the auditor does. So I'm going to do my best to even educate you, OK? I'm the elected auditor. I don't answer to anyone in this building. I answer to the people of Alameda. I cannot be fired for finding the truth. Can't be fired because you don't like me. You can re-elect somebody else. That's the public's privilege. That independence doesn't just protect me. It shields the rank and file city staff. When employees see wrongdoing, they can come to me as a confidential whistleblower. I have the legal authority to pursue the truth. And they get to keep their anonymity and their livelihoods. I've experienced these exact situations. I'm just going to give you one. There was a city manager here, was leaving, and he was stealing books. And somebody from the finance department came to me and said, you know, Mr. Kearney, I think the city manager is stealing books. Please don't reveal that I said a word to you. I said, of course not. I go, why do you think that? And she said, because I saw him putting a bunch of books in his car. So I said, OK, thank you. That, to me, is theft. So I went to the police department. I filed a report. And it was kind of discharged as being a mistake. My comment on that was if it would have been a gardener stealing a lawnmower, he would have been put in jail. But I guess that's just the way it went. So I've experienced these situations, and that independence has saved the city millions of dollars in protected public property. Independence serves as a vital boundary between genuine accountability and the reluctance to speak up. An appointed auditor serves at the pleasure of the mayor, the council, city manager. But if an appointed employee uncovers something sensitive, devastating, politically explosive, they face an impossible choice to do their job or do they protect their paycheck. Fear of reprisal breeds silence. Beyond protection, an elected office provides an anchor of stability against bureaucratic chaos. Look at the revolving door of the city hall over the last eight years. We've cycled through three permanent city managers, four interim city managers, four finance directors, a string of acting directors. Through the absolute whirlwind of turnover, the auditor's office has provided institutional bedrock that the city required. Because of that consistency, Alameda didn't collapse financially. Instead, we secured certificates of achievement for reporting in every year except for one of those chaotic years. I give a lot of credit to the staff that went through that. And I believe a lot of my guidance when we were having finance director after finance director, I think that It certainly was a benefit to the city. I'd like to talk a little bit about the outside auditors and what they actually do. So when the outside auditors come in, their job is to do the work to be able to express an opinion on the financial statements as to their fairness. They do testing of transactions. And they're looking for material problems that could be elevated to the point of some change to opinion, another matter. And that's what their job is. So their interaction with the staff, what is their interaction with the staff? They come out for field work, what, two months, six weeks, whatever it is. So they're not here day to day. The elected position is here day to day. I have conversations with the finance director, a little bit with the staff, a lot with the city treasurer.

So the five minutes is up if you're getting close to wrapping.

I'm going to round it. I am going to wind it up. But I mean, I think this is absurd, too. You're going to make a charter adjustment for five minutes? I mean, that's that governance, right? We want that independence. I think your actions really speak where you're coming from. But that's OK. How about this? In summary, the elected auditor negates collusion. It counsels out undue influence. It ensures that the books are clean, the staff is safe, and the public is protected. I said, please do not dismantle the only true firewall the taxpayers have. And if this is about the 30 grand, we can go on at nauseam how the treasurer and I have saved more money than that. But also, I'm here to announce, too, I'm not going to run again. So I've done this. I was appointed in 91. I've been through a lot of ups and downs. And I will tell the next person, I hope there is, an elected auditor. I really do. It's a tough job, because you face people. There's a lot of power behind in this city, the power that controls the decisions, who gets elected up there. And when you open your mouth and just talk about math that I learned in Alameda Unified, there's unbelievable reprisal at times. So it's a job not for the faint of heart. So I'll take some questions if you can formate some.

Thank you for that. Questions, council?

Thank you, and that was the intent of the five minutes was just a starting chair and then the questions Thank You council. Yeah, and so, you know, I'm just trying to get to the heart of What is the best model for Alameda? Is it to eliminate these positions? Is it to refine them consolidate them? What's the most important thing that we could shoot we should be considering going forward in that vein are there things that you feel that a city auditor can do that are beyond the scope of what the outside firm like Mays does every year?

Well, I think the main thing that, like I said, that Mays does, they're taking the whole financial operation as a whole. They're doing testing. And they're trying to render an opinion based on their tests and what their standards are and what their experience is. And I think when you have somebody that's other than that that's around more than field work and more than generating the financial statements, I think that has merit because things come up. I mean, no one's calling up Mays from the city of Alameda as a citizen and going, jeez, city auditor, how come my business license is getting farmed out to Fresno and it's screwed up every year? What do we do about that? You know, oh, why is this going on? So the function of an independent auditor from the town is you're answering questions from people that are citizens, business people. How does this work? Why are we doing that? What's going on? This is impacting my business. And an outside CPA firm, they're not concerned by that. And with regards to doing extra work, Every time you hire a consultant, you don't think it's more than $30,000? I mean, that's absurd.

So in the charter for the provision that talks about your authority as the city auditor, it uses the two words that I thought are interesting. It says, at least. That your duty is to at least work on those annual costs.

Yeah, it says that the city auditor, that the office is responsible for the audit, at least.

So the question is just, how have you, over the years, defined what those words mean to you? And what else have you done beyond that core duty?

OK, well, I can say probably over the years, to the chagrin of some people, that the at least was involved in many things. As the treasurer talked about, we were on committees to study certain things. We looked into when we were evaluating financial statements and going, geez, this doesn't seem to make sense, questioning city staff, city managers. So my view of being the auditor, being responsible for the actual audit at least, is anything that's financial that appears to be some kind of an accounting issue, or I don't think is policy, I think is fair game. I mean, the very first time I ever spoke about something, I had a question. with the golf course and some fees. And I asked for some information from the golf manager. And he refused to give me the information. And I said, I'm the city auditor. I don't understand that. And I came to a meeting just like this and stood up before the body and said, I have a question. I have some questions with the licensees for residents and non-residents. And it seems to me that I have the authority to ask that question. Is that true? Yes or no? There was a break. Bill Norton came over and frankly made the guy apologize. So I mean, those are the kinds of things that come up when I'm looking at financial information from the city. It's just a number of things like that that an outside audit firm is never going to do. And I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. And I just really want to hammer this home. It's the independent factor. More than anything, you guys can appoint a committee The city manager can have a special person to do it. But at the end of the day, there is no independence, because eventually somebody could say to that person, hey, we're done. The problem's over with. Don't worry about it. If the person's independent, the problem's not done until that independent person is satisfied, brings up issues to you guys who make the call, and the public really finds out what's going on. So the burying of things when there's no independence, I mean, look at the world we live in. We cry about independence and no democracy and this, that, and the other thing. This is exactly what this is. This is no different than what goes on in Washington, what goes on in Sacramento. It's no difference. You're eliminating an independent office for 30 grand a year. Come on, come up with a really good reason, a really good reason, not $30,000.

OK. Did you have further questions? No, no. Thank you. Anything further, folks? Because we're a little over time for taking it.

I just also wanted the same question that I asked. And you've already answered it to a certain extent. But the question that I asked the elected treasurer, with regard to your independence and your provision and support and helping Alameda to establish best practices, can you give some examples of how you have worked with both with the auditors and with the city finance department and the city council.

Well, I think it's basically the same thing. We've been involved in committees, the establishment of the funds for the deferred pension and the OPED. We talked about a long time ago, and unfortunately, I guess the policy just couldn't be adhered to, of the deferred maintenance. So the interaction on those types of things, I think those are the things that I think that have really benefited Alameda in a great way.

And with regard to working with the auditor, just help me to understand how if you are not, you mentioned in your closing a little bit about how you work with the auditor and how the auditor works with our finance department. But if there was not an elected auditor, But how would I, as a city council member, and how would my constituents and your constituents not be as informed if you weren't?

Well, first of all, I think that you would be informed to the extent that somebody wanted you to be informed. So if the finance director, and I'm just using these as examples, the city manager, or somebody else wanted you to be informed to some certain level, that's what you're getting informed to. If there's an independent person, I mean, I've had discussions with the outside auditors about policy. Oh, is this a footnote? Is this a material matter? And there's been discussion on that over the years. And there was a lot of discussion on this back, I want to say, around 2010 when the with Alameda Point on some issues because there was a lot of problems with people with leases out there. And the question came up, are we going to disclose this back rent, these types of issues? And there were some issues where I said, yeah, we're disclosing this. This is material in my mind. And guess what? It got disclosed. But it wasn't going to.

Right. And as a council member, I am going to hear the audit, hear from the auditor. And if you are not available, then I will hear from the audit from the finance director or the city manager. Sure. And that discussion may or may not have taken place, whether an issue is material or whether it is a footnote. And to your point, and if you want to respond to this too.

I'm making eye contact with the city attorney and city manager. Are we getting into any confidential territory?

Not to this point, but I think just to be really clear, we are required to have public discussions about any audit findings if we were moving through a process. Absolutely. This gets discussed and this does not when it comes to public audits.

I'm not, that's not what I'm questioning. My question to the auditor is whether what things, there are findings in an audit and there are footnotes in an audit. There are discrepancies or material findings and then there are things that are not required to be reported. And so to the point that the auditor made earlier, I was just trying to determine whether And certainly you and finance director would have those discussions with staff. But I think what the auditor was alluding to earlier was that perhaps depending on who is in place, depending on the economic and environmental situation in Alameda, some things might not be robustly discussed as to whether their footnote or findings.

I would agree. OK, and that was your question. All right, is that your final question?

Yes.

All right, thank you so much, Mr. Kearney. OK, everyone, we have gone over the two hour mark where we take a break. And so it's 9.07. Let's come back at 9.20. OK, we're starting up again at 9.20. See you then. Okay everyone, please take your seats.

Please don't come over the yellow line, I'll meet you.

I know I will. I was just so confused. All right, everyone. I'm going to start the meeting. Madam Clerk, would you please call the next speaker?

We have Kathy Long, Amos White, and Paula Rainey. They'll get two minutes each.

OK. All right. Kathy Long. Kathy Leong. Welcome.

Thank you.

Mayor Ashcraft, city council members, a lot's already been said that I could never speak to. So I want to thank the treasurer and auditor for being here and speaking on this behalf.

And go ahead and speak into the microphone so we can hear you. Is that better? It is.

OK, so I'm just going to be quick and say this proposal is really a dangerous step backwards. You've already gotten, hopefully you read the email that I sent about this before the January 7th or July 7th meeting. But bottom line is, if you turn this into an appointed role, which kind of smells like that's what possibly could happen, Then, as far as I understand, they would answer to the finance director, and the finance director answers to the city manager, and will ultimately answer to you. So technically, to what the Kevins have said, it's like, you want your job? Are you really going to call somebody out? Leave that to your own thoughts. This would strip the power, ultimately, from the voters that we deserve the democratic right to directly elect people to safeguard our tax dollars. That's a concern of mine. And needless to say, they have both shared that they are not going to be re-elected, but they will, I can almost guarantee that they'll be available to answer questions after they are not an elected official any longer. But rather than change, I'll throw this in, rather than taking the time to change the charter, I'd urge you to work on extremely pressing issues, like finding a developer for one example, the Harbor Bay Landing, so we don't become a food desert out on Bay Farm Island. But one thing that's come up today is you're concerned about this $80,000 that's thrown around here and there. I would respectfully request that total disclosure with however much these outside entities that you would have to hire to look at auditing, to look at treasury, to make sure it's covered.

Thank you so much. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is? Amos White. Welcome, Speaker White.

Then Paula Rainey.

And then?

Paula Rainey.

Paula Rainey. OK, if everyone's ready to jump up when your name is called, we'll keep things moving along. Hello, hello.

Thank you. Hello again. I'm speaking on behalf of myself as a community resident. I urge you to oppose the elimination of the elected city auditor and city treasurer, and not place this on the ballot. And if you do, to oppose it publicly. This proposal isn't happening in a vacuum. We're living through a moment when checks on concentrated power are being dismantled at the federal level, and independent oversight is being treated as an obstacle rather than a safeguard. Local government here in Alameda is where residents can still defend the principle rooted in our Constitution. That power must be accountable to the people, not just to itself. Eliminating an independently elected auditor and treasurer moves financial oversight away from the voters and away from the people and into the hands of officials who answer to city hall rather than directly to the public. That's in the wrong direction and definitely at the wrong time. These offices provide real, tangible value that this report doesn't fully account for. First, the charter requires the auditor to hold a CPA license and equivalent accounting credential, the treasurer to hold a CFA or CFP designation, meaning residents get financially qualified experts overseeing public funds, not a generalist appointee. There are other benefits as well. But again, this would be accountable to the voters and to the public. The subcommittee report cites $84,000 in annual savings. That's real money. But it should be weighed against what independent oversight buys the public in return. I ask you to consider what this report leaves out. In 2019, a council subcommittee studied the same question. And they found that, through meetings before the public and the League of Women Voters, that the public overall supported not eliminating these positions. Please oppose this question. Thank you so much. Your time is up.

Speaker Rainey, you're up next.

Thank you. You can hear me, right? We can. Thank you. My name is Paula Rainey. This area of finance is not something I'm very fluent with, but when I saw the item on the agenda, I was really concerned. And at this point, I have heard the comments tonight. I think I can do more research, but I remain concerned that the city charter is would change because I think even with the knowledge that there are new laws that the city is following to promote transparency and that the city is doing kind of best practices all around I think these two, the auditor and the treasurer, have clearly provided a tremendous service to the city at very little cost. And I'll tell you what first came to mind when I saw the agenda item. A number of years ago, I don't know, maybe 20 years ago, there was a huge concern that came to the city council about financial calamity because pensions were not going to be funded appropriately. And I remember our city auditor and our city treasurer standing before you on more than one occasion raising the alarm. They had to instruct the whole city apparatus, I think, on what was about to come down if immediately or very promptly big steps weren't taken. I haven't forgotten that. I learned a lot. And I just think that's one example of how important in their case, institutional knowledges, but also just the independence that they can bring for a really big picture.

Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is remote, Karen Miller.

Welcome, Speaker Miller.

Hi, Mayor and council members. The individuals that wrote the charter making the auditor and treasurer independent from the council understood that their role should not be influenced by the council. Putting this change in the ballot does not legitimize this power grab. Both Kevin Kearney and Kevin Kennedy have shown to be consummate professionals and been doing a great job keeping the city solvent. Getting rid of these elective officials feels a lot like Trump firing his five-star generals. Please do not vote in favor of putting this on the ballot. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker? That was our last speaker. OK. With that, we will close public comment on item 7B. I'm going to just speak briefly. We know the experience that we've had in Alameda, because we're in Alameda. The concern about public pensions being underfunded, unfunded. is throughout the state. And every city was dealing with it, almost every city. And they didn't all have independent treasurers and auditors. And they're doing things to rectify that. My experience serving on boards like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the League of California Cities, has shown me that the independent auditors we use have brought many of these same concerns to us. You don't have sufficient reserves. This infrastructure is going to need addressing. You need to set aside for that. So it is a function that can be done by someone that we hire. And the idea that someone the city hires would be answering to the city manager, and the city manager answers to the city council, but we are elected by the people too. And so what I think is, I don't agree that it would be stripping power to the voters to ask the voters to decide one way or the other. What I'm hearing is this is what you should decide. And while I very much appreciate hearing from Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kearney, I also bear in mind that these are their jobs. And actually, I meant to start by saying I owe both of you an apology, because from the very beginning, we had said when we started the charter subcommittee, we need to talk to the two of them. And then time went by. I'm busy with a lot of other things. And the city clerk said one day, so mayor, have you reached out to them? And I said, oh my gosh, I haven't. And I think I asked her to do it. And that was just not acceptable. And for that, I apologize. But I still believe that the independence of an auditor is something that can be achieved. And we achieve it every day. And by the way, I get anonymous reports of fraud and things to look into. And I know exactly how to handle them confidentially and who to go to. So it is not held in any one position. So I think it's hard. We've heard a lot of tough things said. The other thing I will just say is that all the auditors that I've worked with, I've never felt that it was partisan, that they didn't like me. I'm a little less inclined to sit down and talk with someone who I just feel may have an agenda with regard to me. But there are different ways of doing the kinds of protections that I know the city council wants to have in place. I don't know whether this body has the stomach to do what the subcommittee is requiring. I think it's fairly simple if these positions are as as important as we have heard them to be, then the voters will continue to affirm that. So I would like that to happen, but I am one vote of five. Who's next?

Vice Mayor? I was going to say, I do want to thank the Kevins, as we affectionately call them. They really have done amazing in laudable service to the city. That is not in question. Again, this is not a referendum on their hard work. But this does not change in my eyes that the position requires, I'm sorry, for example, I'm only going to talk about the treasurer position. It doesn't change. in my eyes, that the position requires the treasurer to review financial investments. So the person running for this office, that is what is in the charter. Again, our finance team currently employs 18 professionals. And I think it's really hard based on all the current or ongoing updates to increase transparency and decrease malfeasance. You've got 18 people watching each other. I just think it really reduces transparency. malfeasance and increases transparency. So Auditor Kearney stated that he has not talked to me or the mayor, and yet we do hear on the dais regularly from the finance director. And this is not like a dig at him, but it speaks to the current practices that we have in place So for example, I got an email from the auditing company. We had a very long conversation. Hey, this is what you can expect from the upcoming audit. And then we got into depth about the different audits that happen throughout the year. Sorry, I'm reading what I wrote. And so also in that conversation, we talked about, well, the first question they asked me was, have you noticed any fraud or any weird activity? And I said, no, I haven't. And apparently, this is a standard question that they ask regularly. And I was like, oh. And it was just very clear, and we're independent, and we protect whistleblowers and their anonymity. So this is a common ongoing practice. They solicit this question from staff. And then I also want to draw attention that it is considered best practice by the industry, which we've all heard, to change auditors every five years. But what we have done as a city is kept the same auditor for 25 years. They got elected. Thank you. It's not Q&A. But they got elected to do something that is also being done. When I say redundant, it's not an insult. I mean it literally. And I also want to note, when the treasurer and auditor spoke, they had a lot of great things to speak to. And they spent a lot of time saying, I did this. We did that. I heard very little about what the actual position does and what the actual position does in addition to what has already be done by our robust finance staff and our third party auditors. And I stress this because when we talk about eliminating the position, we're talking about the position. talking about the hard work that they have done over the past 26 years. I am positing, again, I'm putting it out, if we vote for this, right? Positing that we put this out to the voters who might completely disagree with me. But when we vote again?

you know things have changed sorry first time ever yeah okay all right who's next council member bowler oh thank you um i've just i want to start with some questions for the city attorney if i may what is the effective date of the proposed charter amendment

The charter amendment will become effective when the Secretary of State certifies the election, which the city clerk can help me with.

Yes.

So it's a process where once the council declares the results at the second meeting in December, then it's submitted in a required format signed by the mayor and the city clerk that's submitted to the Secretary of State. And it's usually mid-January that it becomes effective once it's certified by the Secretary of State.

So is that just basically just over half of the four-year term for each position, roughly? Because these are four-year terms, right? And this would be? That is correct. They are four-year terms. Is it fair to characterize it as basically doing the same thing as a recall would then? It's ending the service of these two elected officials in the middle of their term, right?

Well, it's certainly not the same process as a recall, but it would conclude those positions once the vote is certified. And if the vote is positive, then those positions will be removed from the charter.

Now, is it possible, based on the way it was noticed for us to consider as a council tonight, combining the two roles instead of eliminating one, basically combining the two roles into one position?

Councilmember, if you're asking whether or not the Brown Act notice sufficiently allows you to eliminate one or the other or both, the Brown Act notice does give you that flexibility.

And would, for example, like retaining in terms of qualifications for the positions only the auditor's qualifications for the position, is that legally sufficient?

I apologize. I don't know if I exactly understand the question.

Well, if you were to combine the two positions, each has independent qualifications. But if it's one position and we just went with the auditor's qualifications only, would that still be legally sufficient? The council could legally choose to make that decision if you chose. Would the council be able to, in the future, in your opinion, based on the existing language in the charter, by ordinance, be able to consider expansion of the duties of the function to do some more work that hasn't been done before?

Well, under the current charter, the duties are specified in the charter. As you pointed out, there's that at least language. And so the scope of the duties as testified to by both the treasurer and the auditor are not confined by the charter. it is possible for a charter officer, like a treasurer and auditor, to take on assignments beyond what the charter prescribes. I would say that unless the charter indicates otherwise, the council cannot assign work to the auditor and treasurer. The council could recommend work to the auditor and treasurer. And they, as independent elected officials, may take up that work or not take up that work at their discretion. Under the current charter.

And could the council also decide to make that explicit, though, that in terms of the charter going forward, that the council could authorize additional functions?

If your question is could this process where I earlier described where the council refers or recommends work not require work, It exists today, and the charter could, I suppose, memorialize it if the council chose, but it would not change existing practice.

So I do think that there is a case for modernizing and improving what we're doing as a city. My concern is that... That requires substantial work to figure out what's the most optimal way to go forward and also to get the public input on that. That's some of my concern. I certainly don't see any compelling reason to terminate these two public officials who have long served our community in the middle of their terms. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I want to be able to explain more what I would propose, but I'd ask to make a motion to add five minutes to everyone's clock.

Yeah, I was about to tell you your time is going to be up. Yes, that would be fine to add five minutes. Is that good?

You really want five?

Yeah, that's it.

Okay, I move to add five minutes to each council member.

Everyone's in favor. I think we've got four votes. Who seconded it? The vice mayor seconded it. Motion by Council Member Daszak, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. That's five in favor. Okay, keep going.

So I think that I want to make it clear that when I got the staff report from the subcommittee, because how this works is that when there's a subcommittee, that's two council members that work on something. And then it's up to the rest of us to look at that good work and work from there. So I took a lot of the information there. went into the community, talked to other people about it. I talked to people from the League of Women Voters. I talked to, of course, the city auditor and the city treasurer. people who have specialized expertise in financial areas. And I tried to do some research into the history of these positions and get a sense of the accomplishments of the roles over time. And it's absolutely correct. The subcommittee is absolutely correct that, This, to some degree, has evolved greatly over time. I mean, in 1937 in Alameda, the treasurer was probably counting coins and handing them out. I mean, it was a whole different time, right? And over time, our finance department has so many complicated things they're involved with, and they do a lot of work. What should replace them if we're going to eliminate them? I'm not fully comfortable just eliminating them without knowing what's going to replace them. I think the timing is difficult, too, because we're going to be asking for the voters to approve an infrastructure bond in November. And I'm a little bit concerned about the timing of these questions. But that doesn't mean that there isn't merit to what the subcommittee is saying. I just think that in the short term, we could combine them and then do more work. So basically, it would give the council authority to consider, ultimately, if we want to do more charter work, anything from converting to appointed role or to potentially eliminating it if the outside resources are sufficient. I just don't think we've made the case there so far. And this would give This would consolidate. It would go from two to one positions, preserve the continuity and independent oversight, and give the city time to determine what would be the best long-term model.

May I ask you a couple questions?

Absolutely, yeah.

Okay. So, Councilmember Bowler, you raised some interesting points. Would, and I don't know how anybody else feels, but would you feel better about this measure if it were specified that the current office holders could finish out the term of their office if they were so inclined?

I would feel better if that was combined with absolutely that's... Could you just... Let's just stick to the question I asked.

Yes. You'd feel better on that? Sure. Okay. Hold that thought. And this is my concern. I... I believe that we've had two very hardworking individuals in these roles for a couple of decades. We don't know who else is out there and what we get. And so I feel like the suggestions you're making are assigning an awful lot of weighting responsibility to someone and kind of leaving it to chance. And so that's why I wonder if the council wouldn't be better served by identifying the functions outside of our own finance department that they would want that can already be beyond what our independent auditor is already doing, but if there is something specialized. And then actually having a selection process through the council to choose who that would be. And I'm not talking about appointments, because I think the city attorney would tell us there's some. Do you want to just weigh in? We talked a little bit.

SPEAKER 1, Right. And so, counsel, while you heard public comment about appointments, the agenda title does not allow the council at this meeting to restructure these positions to appointed positions that would violate the Brown Act. You could work within the sphere of elections.

So my suggestion to consider is to take it incrementally. I think it's fair to put it to the voters, do you want to continue having these positions? But regardless, if it's possible, and the city attorney can tell us if it is, but regardless of their answer, the current term would continue. But city clerk, is that causing you heartburn?

So just something to think about yeah, thank you, and I appreciate those those thoughts I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about just that how you know the difference between for example a consultant that the city hires and the vetting process for that versus the voters and putting to chance that we get people that are as talented as Kevin Kennedy and Kevin Kearney. I mean, it is a risk. But I balance that against other risks, too. And I think that the bigger picture is not is about really coming up with the best governance model going forward for the city. So I do agree that incremental steps make sense, and that's why I'm suggesting consolidation. Let me do this. I'd like to read a proposed motion that doesn't have to be made yet, because I haven't heard from my colleagues, and I'm not trying to jump the gun. But I just want, for purposes of people, understand my current intent if I make this motion. So I'll read it. I propose that I move to amend the council and adopt the proposed charter measure using the revised language where we would retain one elected charter office under the existing title city auditor. We would permit the current city treasurer to complete the present term and eliminate the separate office of city treasurer upon expiration of that term. Delete Article 5, including the treasurer qualification provision in Section 5-1. Retain the existing city auditor qualifications in Section 4-1. Amend section 4-2 to transfer to the city auditor the treasurer's existing independent duties concerning annual review of and recommendations regarding the city's investment policy, together with any related independent reporting or oversight duties identified by the city attorney.

Council Member Bowler, did you provide that to the city clerk? Because it's really hard to follow all that verbiage.

Yeah, I've had email correspondence with.

So can we put it up on the screen?

The language that you proposed in the resolution, is that what you're asking for? It sounded different to me, so I was a little bit panicked. OK. No, we can put that one up. Let me get it to Rosalina.

It's really hard to hold something. I can't type as fast as that.

I'm almost done with this. While she's doing that, I'll just finish what I was saying and then.

But I appreciate what you're saying. Got 36 seconds.

Add language to section 4 to align the council.

Got 34 seconds. Do you want to save them by letting Laura put it up? It's your choice. OK, I can wait.

Sure. It's your choice.

It's your time. You can add two minutes.

Add two minutes. Do you want to add two minutes?

I'll make a motion. Let's see what we can get up on this one.

I have a point of order before, or a question, actually, up to Councilmember Buller's question, if that would be OK before. Before, Council Member Buller, I just wanted to know, I appreciate your motion, but I wanted to know why this must be done now and why this issue couldn't be brought forward in two years after public outreach is done and with definable alternatives, the urgency, I guess.

I'm going to need more time to address that and the rest of what I was going to do.

Okay, so this is, what, is this your language?

Yeah. Yeah. No, it should show it. But it's not showing which the language is. Oh, there it is. Okay, there we go. Okay, and we're seeing it on...

We're seeing it on our screens too, right?

So that would be the new title. And then you can scroll down. And I can make sure we captured the rest. Just keep scrolling down. They don't need to see the rest. Oh, there's a typo, revise. The word revise, sorry. The qualification, OK. And then keep going down. So change the question there. Oh, it's not showing. Oh, yeah. The strikeout's really hard to see on this big screen. But hopefully, the treasure should still be struck out there. It's just not showing up on the big screen for some reason. So we're leaving Auditor. Oh, yeah. At certain zooms, you could see it. Let me zoom a little differently. There you go. And then keep going down. And then keep going down. So we're leaving Auditor and taking out treasure everywhere. And then it sounded like you were saying a little bit something different in this. So please let me know if I have this wrong. Were you saying that you didn't want the treasurer's duties added to the auditor? It sounded like.

Hey, Council Member Desai, I think I'm ready for that motion to extend time. Because he's only got 36 seconds.

Out of courtesy to my colleague, Council Member Boehler, I would appreciate adding three minutes to all council members.

Thank you. OK, thank you. Do I have a second? Second. It's been moved by Council Member Daszak, seconded by Council Member Jensen to add three more minutes to all of our time. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. OK, three more minutes.

And we have to wait till your time runs down, and then we'll add it at the end. Yes. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you.

OK, so is this to the end of it now? So is that correct, Council Member Poehler, about the did we capture that correctly, moving the? That's what I said. It sounded different to me.

Yeah, I think at 4-1, it doesn't It's not intended to have the additional qualifications of the auditor.

OK. I misunderstood that earlier.

That exists now with the treasurer. In other words, the qualifications would be of the auditor as existing and not adding the treasurer.

So you can take that out.

So that sentence would be removed. But in section 4-2, I think this is correct. It's adding the treasurer's role to the auditor position. But it has an additional sentence that is important, which is the city council may establish additional duties by ordinance And I think it's repeated twice there.

I know. And it isn't showing the latest language either. I have no idea what's going on.

And to address Councilmember Jensen's points, I actually have sort of another motion in tandem to this in terms of the work ahead that I would Because I do see it as being important, to your point, that the work is done in order to figure out the best model. So I'm proposing that I would further move that the council direct staff to return after the election, if this measure is approved by the voters, with a proposed public workshop process looking at whether to expand the city auditor's responsibilities by ordinance to include things like operational performance or efficiency type audits, the appropriate procedures for audit work plans and council recommendations, And then independence to records and access and those types of matters. Whether a financial or audit advisory committee would be useful. How to avoid operational overlap or the creation of an unproductive competing authority. And then whether the long-term structure should retain an elected auditor, convert the office through a future charter amendment to a council-appointed professional position, or eliminate the office in favor of an outside audit model with appropriate council involvement and safeguards. And so the purpose of that process would be to preserve continuity now while allowing the city to make the deliberate informed decision about the best long-term oversight model.

Thank you.

I guess I'll call on Council Member Jensen.

Oh, thank you.

You were asking to speak.

Yeah, no, that was my, I had asked that question.

Yeah, to the chair, please. Excuse me? To the chair, go ahead.

So thank you for the response to the question. I understand that there might be additional work to be done. It seems to me that with the potential proposals, I think that we would have further charter amendments if there were to be another establishment of another committee like a finance committee or an audit committee for the city. Or can we just establish committees at any time, or are these part of the charter? I'm sorry, I'm asking the attorney.

Please, be my guest.

Councilmember, typically, council committees and subcommittees could be established by the council, and it does not require a charter amendment.

So to that point, this would be a council committee you're envisioning, or not a public committee?

Yeah, this companion motion is just directing staff to come back with a proposal for workshops and how to tackle these issues and come up with a long-term proposal for the best governance model.

Well, wait. Help me understand the proposal for a council finance committee, because I thought we'd established that none of us has financial experience. What do you envision is that? Are you two talking about the same thing?

I mentioned in the companion motion that part of the discussion should see whether or not there should be some type of citizen committee that looks at these issues to complement the work of the position. But I don't know if that addresses what Councilmember Jensen was saying.

Well, my question, and thank you, my question was whether a citizen committee would have to be established by the charter or whether the council can establish a citizen committee, a citizen finance committee like our transportation or planning or whatever.

I'm just going to jump in here and say I am thinking that we don't have the Call it what you will, the political will, the desire to move forward to adopt the charter as was suggested. I always appreciate suggestions. I think yours, Councilman Bowler, and I haven't even seen the other companion measure you're talking about. I think they merit some further discussion. So maybe one thing we consider is just table the whole thing and then set up a series of workshops, maybe in partnership with, I don't know, the League of Women Voters or some other entity to explore this. The deadline, because you're working on a couple of charter amendments now, the deadline for writing the measure, for the argument in favor, for any rebuttal is short. And I'm just not sure it would do justice to these rather innovative ideas you're coming up with.

Yeah, I don't see it as that complicated. It's just combining the two roles. I'm just going to formally make the motion that I stated before. And if it gets a second, we can discuss it more. I wanted to deference the other council members. I wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to weigh in.

Anybody else want to say anything? OK, so what's your motion?

The motion that I previously stated, and it's basically to consolidate the two offices, let the current city treasurer serve out the term, use the qualifications of the auditor for the position going forward with the title city auditor, and combine the responsibilities with the additional language that we saw that was brought up on the screen to provide the ability of the city council to help authorize additional work and potentially expand the role of the position.

We've had a motion. I'm not seeing a second. That motion dies for lack of a second. Thank you. Anyone want to consider my .. Were you waiting to say something to speak?

I certainly have comments to offer. So I'm more than happy to, if you want me to weigh in. I do believe that the situation that we have now serves Alameda well. And for that reason, I would not support placing this on the ballot this November. nor would I support tabling the matter for future discussions. I recognize other council members might feel otherwise with regard to the tabling question, but because I feel strongly about the role of the auditor and the treasurer as representatives of the people with respect to the auditor reviewing and maintaining our books, And with regard to the treasurer, making sure that we make sound, prudent financial decisions with regard to what monies that we have. I do think that it's important to remember that the inclusion of both the city auditor and the city treasurer did not happen in a vacuum in 1937. It's important to remember that in the sweep of Alameda's 172 year history, from April 19, 1854 to today, July 21, 2026. In the sweep of that 172 years, there had been tremendous highs in the life of Alameda, for which we are the beneficiaries of a great quality of life. But over that 172 years, there have been low periods. And in the low period that we need to also discuss is the year 1936. In 1936, what had happened was that, as indicated by, I believe, the city auditor, in 1936 what had happened was that a staff member reported to the district attorney at that time, Earl Warren. He reported. that there was malfeasance going on in City Hall. And there was malfeasance going on in City Hall in 1936 and up until 1936 in a variety of forms. And why the role of the city treasurer came to be is because at the time, the police department maintained its own financial books. And that was the way it was, by the way. And that the city manager, I believe, wanted to do otherwise. That was against the rules. We might not do that today that way, but that was against the rules. And also at the time, I'm not sure if there was a city auditor position, but that there was some malfeasance with regard to the way in which public funds were being used. And when this was brought to the attention of district attorney Earl Warren by, I believe, a staff member from the city attorney's office at the time, when it was brought to the attention, what they also discovered was that, The city manager was directing a staff member from what would turn out to be the planning department to help build a summer house of one of the council members, Council Member Monroe. And what was also discovered was that the mayor in 1936, Mayor Rebke, was accepting money from the operator of the Alameda Theater.

$400.

And so there was also a third city council member who was part of that team of Monroe, Rebke, and I don't know the name of the third council member. It was a long time ago, 1936. And what was also happening at that time was that, and this is really strange, the city manager in the office behind us for 1936 not only had hidden listening devices, but also had recording devices, anticipating something that happened in 2017. And so when all of this came to light in 1936, Earl Warren jumped on it. The city manager at the time, Ray Fritz, ultimately went to San Quentin, served time, as did the city mayor, Rebke. They went to it. And out of that came the charter reform spirit of 1936 that led to the vote of April 20, 1937, when the auditor position was placed into 2-1 as an elective officer position accountable to the people of Alameda, along with the treasurer. And at the time, that the role of the auditor, which was adopted by an ordinance prior to the election, was approved by the vote of the people on April 20, 1937. So all of what we're talking about didn't occur in a vacuum. And I would argue that we should pay more attention to the fact that both the auditor and treasurer are the people's eyes and ears on a City Hall operation amounting to basically one-third of a billion dollars. spend more time on that rather than the fact that we spend perhaps $50,000, $60,000 a year on the city treasurer and the city auditor. I think it's wiser to be careful to have the independent city auditor and city treasurer position, because I think that's what the people of Alameda in 1937 wisely determined was crucial for maintaining the quality of life, not just for Alameda from 1854 to 1937 or 1937 to 2026, but even beyond. So my hope is that we take a deeper dive into the history as to why we have the elected positions of the city auditor and the city manager and the city treasurer and just basically drop the matter. And let's just let them do their work. I hear the question, the argument about, Well, it's a roll of the dice. Who's going to be the city treasurer or the city auditor? Well, honestly, it's a roll of the dice. Who's going to be a city council member? Who's going to be a city manager? It's called democracy. And it's a marketplace of ideas and individuals, men and women. And they come forward and they show their bona fides. And the people of Alameda, as well as across the nation, make their decision accordingly. So I think let's heed the wisdom of the people from 1937 here in the year 2026 and, frankly, just drop this matter and maintain the independence of the city auditor and city treasurer positions. Thank you.

That was enlightening. Council Member Dasek, I did not know all that history. I would gently argue that a lot has changed since 1937. We don't do things just the way we did back then. And when we hire a city manager, it's a competitive process of others with comparable experience. And I continue to have concerns about, so we've had these offices with no one competing, and maybe no one runs for them. Or somebody does, and anybody who runs will get elected. I think one could also make the argument that, as has been said more than once, it's not that much money. So whether we get our money's worth out of them or not, we've got lots of safety nets in our finance department, our independent auditor, and anyone we want to hire to do studies for us. So yeah, I think that I would always favor letting the voters decide. to have the votes to be there. So thank you for that. Anyone else want to chime in? Council Member Jensen.

Thank you for your comments, Councilmember Daszak. I'm biased also in favor of retaining both elected positions for different and perhaps more personal reasons than my council colleague. I've served on both audit and investment committees for an organization with a significantly larger budget than the City of Alameda. And during that time, I saw firsthand how board members were constrained in the absence of an independent auditor and an investment manager. So I know how important the positions are from a personal perspective. I had the opportunity to get the direct benefit also of the elected treasurer when I brought forward a divestment strategy for Alameda. And Treasurer Kennedy worked with me on public outreach and on informing the council. And thanks to the work we did together, that updated investment policy stands today as Alameda's only public response to the terrible war in Gaza. According to the agenda report and also information provided in tonight's discussion, these issues were last considered by the City Council more than six years ago. I appreciate the extensive work done by the 2020 Council Subcommittee, and I want to share some details that aren't in the agenda report about how that work was unique and how it differed from the current proposal. The current Charter Review Subcommittee was established by Mayor Ashcroft in June 2025, as was the 2018 subcommittee. And both subcommittees lasted between a year and a year and a half. But the 2018 subcommittee was in place and did some work with the public prior to bringing forward the recommendations. Although they were in place for a similar amount of time and they were both appointed by the mayor and they both had two council members, that's where the similarities end, particularly with regard to transparency. The current subcommittee did not hold any public meetings while the 2019-2020 Charter Review Subcommittee did extensive public outreach, including two subcommittee reports at public city council meetings and two public workshops in coordination with the League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters was not aware of or consulted on this particular charter review proposal. The other discrepancy between the two subcommittees is with the timing and the recommendations. This subcommittee is making a recommendation for immediate action so that this item can be placed on the November 2026 ballot. We've been talking about this for about two and a half hours now, while the prior subcommittee shared recommendations with the council in May of 2020, giving the council up to three months to deliberate and find alternatives. That's what Councilmember Buller was suggesting, that we look at alternatives. And I agree that would be important. Finally, I will contrast the recommendation that came out of the robust, transparent, publicly accountable 2019-2020 subcommittee with the recommendation we're discussing tonight. Again, after 15 months of work, including meetings with each of the incumbents and five public meetings to gain input from Alameda constituents, in 2020, the city council subcommittee did not recommend a charter amendment to eliminate the elected auditor and treasurer. After 13 months of gathering information privately with no public outreach and no information gathering and without consulting with the elected incumbents in the 2026, subcommittee recommends eliminating the elected auditor and treasurer. despite evidence of substantial cost benefits and no alternative to replace these independent and direct service provided by these positions. So now I want to just show something that I asked the city clerk to provide, because earlier the mayor had pointed out she wasn't sure why the earlier subcommittee did not recommend elimination of the positions. And as you can see from the slide, well, I guess you can't really see it. But the earlier subcommittee did not recommend it because after public outreach, it turns out that Alamedans did not support it, that the majority of Alameda residents did not support this charter amendment in 2020. After all that work, after 15 months of outreach, it was not supported by the public. 53% were not in favor because they felt that there would be a loss of accountability. They did not believe that it was a waste of money. So not only is this poor governance completely lacking in transparency, the positions have not been proven to be redundant or unnecessary. Ultimately, there's no evidence that the costs of the positions outweigh the benefits, as we've heard tonight. Nor has any information been provided about what might replace the independent elected council established in the 1937 city charter. I do not feel comfortable. As an elected official, finally, I'm not comfortable, as an elected official, bringing forward a decision to eliminate the offices of other elected officials with no demonstrated rationale. And so I will not support this.

Council Member Jensen, on the survey that you showed us, who conducted the survey and what was the sample size?

You may be aware of that. I think there was outreach done during that.

I believe it was from the League of Women Voters. Is that correct?

It was from the workshops, I don't know.

Exactly. Hello. Hello. Is it OK if I?

Absolutely. Go ahead through the chair, Council Member Desai.

So Council Member, Vice Mayor at the time, John Knox-White, and myself, as appointed by Mayor Ezzie Ashcraft at the time, basically were the subcommittee who vetted a range of ideas for modernizing, updating our charter reform. A key meeting for gathering input and therefore some sense of legitimacy was a meeting held at the League of Women Voters at Mastic Center, I believe it was, where we had people go to a board and give their input. It was a very robust process, not just meeting the League of Women Voters, but also other entities such as the Alameda Citizens Task Force. So I do think that we went through a process where we introduced what our approach would be with the city council to get their guidance, their input. We kind of also divided how are we going to deal with what we obviously know to be top level issues, such as Measure 8. And will that be part of the charter reform discussion, or will it not? What will be kind of the kitchen sink type of issues that we can deal with? And then what would be the novel ideas, which was, for example, the reformation that was allowed of the city attorney's office.

But if I can just get the answer to the question, I asked.

It was the legal women's voters' MASTEC meeting.

The forum at MASTEC and about how many people were present?

I can't remember, but it was a good showing, though. So if you were to say 50 people, I would say that sounds right.

OK, so that's a poll based on 50 people that chose to come.

And how many people have been polled? How many residents has the subcommittee polled?

They didn't, Council Member Jensen, but I wasn't holding up statistics to prove something. I would say that sample size was selective and small. But your point is well taken. But wait, let's see. You had the floor, Councilwoman Jensen. Are you finished? Oh, that's my comment. OK, Councilmember, you've talked.

Vice Mayor Pryor? This is going to be short. I feel like I kind of know where everyone is going to vote. But I just want to posit quickly that I do believe the finance department are beholden to the residents of Alameda. I just want to say that, regardless if there is a treasurer or not, I think these are professionals that are committed to the great welfare of our city. So I just want to say that. And I also would posit that the third party auditors are able to do, because This is their focus, and they're a team of them, that they can do a much deeper dive than one elected could do. That's an opinion. I also want to say that we are up here every two weeks discussing. We're transparent. The process. that is currently there is we don't have a process to get regular reports in any way from the treasurer or the auditor. What we've heard tonight is all anecdotal. I believe them, but there is no regular process. So we get regular reports from the finance team, from all the different departments, And so the future electeds for these positions, there is no process for them to be answerable and transparent to our community as is. Just wanted to put that out there. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments. I'm reading my colleagues on the dais. And I would say there is not a meeting of the minds here. But they also, it's a maxim of law. You know this, reasonable minds can differ. We're all reasonable, and we're all over the place. So I would say that we just move forward without taking a vote on this. Does that work? Yeah. Not at this time. All right. Thank you everyone for your input. Thank you for your service. Let's move on to the next item. Madam Clerk, would you introduce that for us, please?

Yes, it's final passage of uncodified ordinance ordering the submission of a measure incurring bonded ineditance to the qualified voters of the City of Alameda at the general municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026 for the purpose of financing the cost of the acquisition and construction of certain municipal improvement projects. This item requires four affirmative votes and adoption of 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 measure to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance municipal improvements establishing the policies and procedures for such an election, requesting that the county of Alameda conduct such an election, and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure.

All right, so council, we had a very comprehensive presentation on this item at the last meeting. And so our wonderful sustainability and resilience manager, Danielle Miller, is up here just to see if you have any questions or if someone's ready to make a motion, a second, and take a vote. No questions.

Okay, I move that we... There's no public comment. Okay, thank you so much for that.

Okay, so no clarifying questions, no public comment, a motion?

Yeah, I was going to move that we approve item 7C, final passage of uncodified ordinance ordering the submission of a measure incurring bonded indebtedness to the qualified voters of the city of Alameda at the general municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026.

And adoption of the resolution as well?

And the adoption of the resolution. And adoption of the resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026. Thank you.

And I heard a second by Councilmember Boehler. Anything further? OK. Council, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Opposed? Was that an I? No, no, no. You said I. He said I. I heard him. It's in the record. All right. It still passes. We needed four votes. We got four votes. We will let the people decide.

And then your next step is deciding on those ballot authors, argument authors.

So what I actually am happy to author this, let's see, it's the- It'd be the argument in favor. The argument in favor.

OK. And any rebuttal.

All right.

Do you want to work with me on the argument in favor?

OK. So I would nominate myself and Councilmember Greg Bollard to work on the argument in favor. You want to also do any rebuttal to an opposition? In the rebuttal. In the rebuttal as well. Do we vote for that? I think we have to vote on that.

Does an oppositional letter writer have to be designated now?

It doesn't have to be designated.

OK. And does that council priority thing still take place? Yes. Oh, OK. All right.

We want to make a motion to approve us. I will make a motion to nominate the Mayor and Councilmember Buller to write the statement for... We'll author both the argument in support and any rebuttal to the opposition, if there's an opposition.

So moved.

Okay. So it's been moved by Councilmember Vice Mayor Fryer, seconded by... seconded by a council member bowler all those in favor please signify by stating aye aye it's only about who's authoring it oh my goodness whatever

Oh, yes. And so, yeah, the deadlines, we'll send you guys the information tomorrow as well. And it's in the staff reports. But let me quickly open it and tell you what it is. It is.

I forgot it. You have it already? You're beating me. Let's see if I can open it faster. I'm clicking in the wrong folders because I'm panicked. OK, let's see. Here it is.

The arguments and rebuttals shall be submitted in accordance with election code, yada, yada, yada, on Tuesday, August 4. And rebuttals are due by 5 PM on Thursday, August 13, correct?

Yep, perfect. Yeah. Could I have a question? Yes. I think this was mentioned that when This item came up last time. You mentioned, Madam Mayor, something about not having people write the arguments that were being elected or up for election.

MARTHA MINOWSKI- I wasn't going to have ballot signers who were running for office. Thanks. MARTHA MINOWSKI- Yeah. Thanks. MARTHA MINOWSKI- Yeah. OK, anything further? All right. And Madam Clerk, you'll keep nudging us about those deadlines.

We'll send something out to you tomorrow, yes. OK, next up.

7D?

Yes. Introduction of ordinance amending the Albany Municipal Code by adding section 8-8.10, no parking in bicycle lanes, to article 8-8 general parking regulations of chapter 8, traffic, motor vehicles, and alternative transportation modes to prohibit the parking of vehicles in any designated class 2, class 3, or class 4 bicycle lane within the city of Alameda and adoption of resolution amending the master fee schedule to add fine amounts for new parking violations.

Hello. You get the last man standing award.

Plenty of time for comments.

Go ahead and introduce yourself, if you would, please.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the council. My name is Ricardo De La Torre. I'm the city's parking manager. Tonight, council is considering two related actions, the introduction of an ordinance adding section 8-8.10 to the Alameda Municipal Code to prohibit parking in class 2, 3, and 4 bicycle lanes citywide, and adoption of a resolution amending the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 master fee schedule to establish the initial fine and late penalty amounts for this new violation. So tonight, I'll cover a few things, a brief overview of Alameda's existing bicycle network, the enforcement gap that this ordinance is designed to close, the components of the proposed ordinance, the accompanying resolution amending the master fee schedule, next steps if the ordinance is introduced and the resolution is adopted tonight, and lastly, staff's recommendations. Soar Lovely Island City has more than 60 miles of bikeway across the city and added over two miles in 2025 alone. This network includes four classes of bikeways as defined under California streets and highways code section 890.4. To describe this a bit further, class one, also known as shared use paths, provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. Alameda has almost 20 miles. For class two, commonly known as bike lanes, provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles. Alameda has more than 22 miles. For Class III, also known as bike routes or bike boulevards, provide a right of way shared with pedestrians and motorists, designated by signs or permanent markings, sometimes commonly known as sharrow markings on the roadway. Alameda has over 13 miles. And then lastly, Class IV, commonly known as cycle tracks or separated bikeways. Now, they provide a right of way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway, separated from vehicular traffic by grade, posts, barriers, or on-street parking. And Alameda has almost six miles. So together, these facilities form an extensive network that the public rely on for safe and efficient travel across the city. California Vehicle Code Section 21211 prohibits stopping or parking in a Class 1 bikeway. But unfortunately, it does not clearly extend that prohibition to Class 2, 3, or 4 bikeways. That gap in state law means that when a vehicle parks in a class 2, 3, or 4 bike lane, the cities had to rely on workaround citation bases. For example, issuing citations such as parking prohibited at all times, no double parking, out of marked space. Unfortunately, these workarounds, well, rather, they can be applied in some locations, like our downtown business districts, where Class 2 bike lanes are common. Think Park Street, Webster Street. But unfortunately, they do not apply uniformly across the city's entire bicycle network. So that leaves many bicycle lanes without an effective enforcement mechanism. The photos on this slide show examples that our enforcement team had taken from the field. The proposed ordinance adds Section 8-8.10 to Article 8-8 General Parking Regulations of Chapter 8 of the Alameda Municipal Code. The ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to park a vehicle in any portion of a designated Class 2, 3, or 4 bikeway within the city of Alameda, as defined in California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. unless lawfully parked as otherwise permitted by law or official traffic control devices. This ordinance establishes an initial parking penalty of $79. The accompanying resolution amends master fee resolution number 12191, which is the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 master fee schedule recently adopted by council on June 2, 2026, to formally add a new violation and fine amounts. Now together, both actions will improve enforcement consistency, reduce hazardous conditions created when vehicles are parked in bicycle lanes, and promote safe and efficient travel for vehicles, pedestrians, and people riding bicycles. If council approves the first reading of the ordinance and adopts the resolution this evening, the next step is final passage of the ordinance on September 1, 2026. Note that, of course, August is a dark month for council. The ordinance would then take effect 30 days after final passage on October 1, 2026. and pending final passage of the ordinance, the resolution fine amounts would then become effective October 1, 2026. Thereafter, following the effective date, parking enforcement staff would then begin issuing more effective citations directly for parking in a class 2, 3, and 4 bicycle lane citywide. Staff's recommendation are for two actions tonight. First, approve the first reading of the ordinance, and second, adopt the resolution. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, and very nice job on the staff report. I have a couple of questions. On the slide about the cycle tracks, Do we really just have six miles of cycle tracks? I know Shoreline, but we've since added Clement, and we've added Central Avenue from whatever it is, 8th to wherever it goes, past Crab Cove and all that. That's still just six miles?

Thank you for the question, Mayor Ashcraft. The data that is represented on the slide was pulled within the last two months from our transportation team. They had provided me that data. So I can't speak to the exact specifics of how we've expanded our current network. But I do know that that is accurate information.

Well, I would have said it was a little longer. So then my question, and this is a very important item, because I think a lot of us know that in Alameda, 40% of our schoolchildren get to school by walking or biking. And so of course, we want to make sure that, especially for the children and the less experienced users, but also when I'm out riding, I don't like to have to navigate around a car or a truck parked in the bike lane. But on a street like Park Street, where businesses aren't necessarily back loaded, where you could bring a delivery truck around back, how do you reconcile businesses needing deliveries that come from trucks with this ordinance?

Thank you for the question, Mayor Ashcroft. If I'm understanding your question correctly, how are our parking enforcement staff delineating the types of citations that are issued when it comes to a commercial vehicle perhaps parked in a bike lane versus... Another vehicle?

What I'm saying is, if we're saying no more parking in bike lanes, including on Park Street, that's an important policy consideration. But there are also other uses on Park Street, including businesses that rely on deliveries that come in trucks. So are we saying, and District Director Smith, do you want to come up? OK, very good. So what then? I'm not asking what kind of citation the truck will get. It's like, are we also keeping our businesses' needs in mind?

It's a concerted effort. What I can tell you is that our enforcement staff do a wonderful job educating the parking community on how to park safely and correctly. Whether you're in a passenger vehicle or a commercial vehicle, parking in a bicycle lane, double parking or not paying for your parking at a meter is a violation. So there are curbside spaces, commercial loading zones throughout our commercial districts, think Park Street and Webster Street. for these commercial vehicles to deliver their services as service providers.

Where are they, and how is it that they avoid being in a bike lane?

So without showing a current map of the exact location of these commercial loading zones, they are throughout the commercial corridors.

I would love a little more detail than that. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'm just picturing, I mean, would we say no trucks except between the hours of 5 and 7 AM or something like that? But I'm trying to understand, we're saying, And maybe we are saying that a truck can never park on Park Street. They should park on a side street and have a hand truck that they bring the supplies to. I mean, maybe that's what we're saying, but I'm assuming that there was some sort of look at all the different uses. Because I will just say this, that For our business community, it is not easy to run a business these days with costs escalating and people not eating out as much and everyone worried about affordability. So we don't want to hamper our businesses. So I'm just trying to understand. You're saying they should find those commercial parking zones and park in them. Yeah, I guess I'd feel better if I saw Like a map of where that would be and just there were some such great visuals in your presentation and please director Smith if you can add to it, please come on up and Put me out of my misery Good evening mayor vice mayor members of the council.

I'm Aaron Smith public works director what we did time sort of blends was it three four or five years ago when we restriped Park Street and coming out of the pandemic and Webster Street, excuse me. And we have those striping plans, Mayor, that we can share with you. But as part of that effort is where we surveyed the commercial corridor to get an understanding of where those loading zones need to be placed. And so they do exist. Whether they're sufficient or not, we always... have open channels where businesses can reach out to us in public works. And we review requests for green zones, blue zones, yellow zones. So those can come in individually. Ideally, we look at commercial corridors holistically, which I know was done a number of years ago. But again, we're always open to re-looking at things if additional loading zones are needed.

And again, and not to belabor the point, but I'm just trying to understand. So there's commercial parking zones on Park Street that aren't in a bike lane? How does that work? Or are they on the side streets, maybe?

JODY FREEMAN- Yep, so good question. The curb itself, and then there's the parking lane, and then there's the bike lane. And so if the curb is painted yellow, it allows the truck to be immediately adjacent to the curb. So they will traverse the bike lane, but they're not going to stop in it.

Does that help? Yeah, that does help. OK. OK. Yeah. OK. Well, and I guess, as with anything, we'll see how it all plays out. But I do understand that with things like door dash drivers and all that, there's a lot of parking where it shouldn't be.

Yes. Yeah.

Definitely. OK. Thank you for that. Thank you. Other clarifying questions, council? Chancellor Jensen?

Thank you. Just one question. With regard to the workaround fines, what are those fines? What do people tend to get fined? I shouldn't say what are they. You talked about the different things that could be fined. I just wanted to know how the amount of the fines differs from what we will be implementing with adoption of this ordinance.

Thank you for the question, Council Member Jensen. So our current vehicle code, the fine for vehicle code for double parking is $79. The resolution, the fine amount for tonight's no parking in bicycle lane is the same, $79. Thank you. And if I could add to your question, Madam Mayor Ashcraft, not only are there curbside commercial loading zones along the main arterial or Park Street, on the collector streets, on some of the side streets as well, there are commercial loading zones. And we do, we, Public Works, have a great working relationship with our business districts. where we inform them, hey, this service provider is parking in the vehicle lane of traffic consistently. Here's some citation data. It may be worthwhile to message to your delivery service providers that 5 PM on a Friday may not be the optimal time to deliver the seafood.

I would agree with that. OK, thank you. That is helpful. Any other clarifying questions? Council Member Daszak?

Hi. I just have a question out of curiosity. In your presentation, you state that state CBC 21211, I believe, prohibits parking in class 1 bikeways only. Is there a reason? Do you know a reason why there are no similar state prohibitions with regard to class two, class three, or four? And do you know if there are state legislators working on that? I mean, might we make a recommendation to our?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Daszak. So I cannot speak on behalf of the state. Of course, we do know that Vehicle Code Section 21211 prohibits, yes, no parking only in Class 1. What I can say is that at the local level, some of the street level bureaucrats, they are working with legislators on including additional language that would extend to class II, III, and IV. It's not a touchy subject, but it is on the radar of many municipalities and agencies within our region and throughout the state of California. Thank you.

Um, any other clarifying questions? Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

We do. We have one.

All right.

Cindy Johnson.

Welcome, Speaker Johnson.

Unmuted.

Cindy Johnson, are you there? She's still there.

Yeah, she's unmuted, too.

There she is. Hello. Hi. Good evening, Marys, Ashcraft, and members of the council. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda. We really appreciate staff's work on this item and their responsiveness to our concerns. With the revised language acknowledging that the state law is not clearly applicable, and that's important because there is state law about this and there's some confusion about what it applies to, to Councilmember Daszak's point, we support staff's recommendation as the most straightforward workaround to Alameda's current interpretation of the state law. We already sent in a letter about this item, sharing our thoughts on why keeping bike lanes unobstructed is so important. But we wanted to add that we do not see this as the end of the conversation. Bike Walk Alameda will continue working with Bike East Bay, Cal Bike, and we hope the city state lobbyist to pursue a technical amendment to the vehicle code that would remove the ambiguity that's creating this confusion. In the long run, being able to cite the state code directly would be preferable. It would improve statewide data collection, create consistency across jurisdictions, and could potentially enable camera-based enforcement technology like those being used on buses in Santa Monica and Sacramento, both of which enforce these violations under California Vehicle Code 21211. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you. Was that our only public comment? Yes. OK, with that, we will close public comment. And I will entertain a motion, unless you want to discuss further.

I'll move approval of the ordinance and resolution.

We have a motion by Councilwoman Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. All right. So we have come to, we don't need to do that motion because we've come to the end of our action items. And we move on to City Manager Communications. City Manager Jerry Brodin.

Thank you.

Your second city council meeting.

Well, good evening, Mayor, members of the city council. I'm just going to really flash back to my first meeting and say that it's great to be back in Alameda and able to work with you all, serve the community. Really looking forward to our time together. I want to extend my appreciation to City Attorney Shen for all of his support. during my transition and in prior time working together. I wish him all the best. I'm going to mostly highlight a few upcoming events that are happening in the community for residents tonight with city manager comments. First, this Friday, July 24th, is our ARPD team is continuing the outdoor movie series. The screening this week is Back to the Future. And so that's at Alameda Point Municipal Purpose Field. And it's at 630 so it's a great time for family to spend time on a summer summer evening second this weekend on Saturday and Sunday July 25th and 26th you all know this but for folks who may be Just tuning in or trying to figure out what to do this weekend the downtown Alameda Business Association is hosting the 39th art and wine fair on Park Street It's a huge event, one of the city's largest free street events this year, over 200 arts and crafts, food vendors, local beer, wine, live music on three stages, family friendly, not the beer and wine part, but all the other parts. And so we're encouraging everyone to come out and support local businesses and artists this weekend. And then finally, just to note that The downtown Alameda farmers market is also happening every Thursday 3 to 7 Alameda Avenue all the way through or into early August So nice opportunity as well to get out and enjoy the community atmosphere and that's going to conclude my comments this evening mayor Thank you very much

Thank you so much. And council, I actually misspoke when I said we didn't need to take a vote. You'll get to it before that. We'll get to it. OK. We do have one voting item still to come. So we just have to go to it before 11 AM. Let's see. Do we have any, we don't have any further oral communications, non-agenda items? Any council referrals not this evening? No. Council communications?

So you want to do that 11 A right now so we get to the vote?

Why don't we, yeah, let's jump to 11A so that we don't have to take a vote to go past 11 p.m. So Madam Clerk, can you introduce that one for us?

It's Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. And currently the mayor has been the delegate and the vice mayor has been the alternate. And both are attending the conference this year and available to serve, continue doing it.

So we just need a motion and a second to approve us again. We have approval. By council Jensen Jensen, okay motion by council member Jensen second by council member days like all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye Thank you.

All right So then we can go back to council communications Why don't we start with you council member days like I no no communications to say you know we will be having our time away August so yeah it's like the last day of school when we used to say see you in September now they go back to school in August but see you in September yes indeed council member bowler

Keep in touch with us. Yeah. I guess I was talking to you and to our city manager on the side, and I didn't realize in my little speech before, I neglected to say that that poem was actually on the piece of art. Yeah, yeah, it's actually on. That's why I was talking about it, and the title of the piece of art. So it's just... But today, getting to know a little bit more about your staff and the amount of things you do, it's just, we're going to miss you. We're going to miss your contributions.

Vice Mayor Pryor. I was just going to add more to what I had said earlier to Eben. Your demeanor is, you're so calm, and you make your job look easy. But I know for that to happen. A lot of hard work went into creating that peaceful and professional environment. And I knew the very first time I stepped into your offices that you are an effective leader and collaborator. Yeah, for everything to be that calm, cool, and collected, that is like, serious leadership, lots of hard work. And I am going to miss you. I'm going to, well, you know, we still have our phones, but we laugh a lot. So I'm going to miss that. I'm going to miss, don't look at even right now, so I don't laugh.

Council Member Jensen.

I'm going to actually make a different comment. Of course, I am going to miss even tremendously. And I suspect that my comments and my decision making will suffer by not having you to bounce all of my ideas off of. But I do know how to reach you, so. What I want to say actually was about tonight's city council meeting. And tonight's city council meeting, I just wanted to point out it was notable for what was accomplished and what was deferred. The council just voted for final adoption of a resolution to place an infrastructure bond measure and two charter amendments on the November ballot. and initiatives that I support. But even though I voted yes, I'm just disappointed by the lack of transparency and the limited public outreach that was done to inform Alameda voters and Alameda residents about these important changes, especially the bond measure. The bond measure language and survey questions were drafted by staff without any input or discussion from council. And robust outreach was not done. Very little outreach to voters was done through partners, especially partners that we've always worked with in the past, like the League of Women Voters. And as I mentioned earlier during the discussion about the positions, a substantive charter amendment to eliminate two elective offices in place for nearly 100 years was drafted behind closed doors with no consideration for the opinions of council or, more importantly, Alameda residents. So in my three and a half years on this council, I've attempted on many occasions to use my position to increase transparency, And thank you to for helping me with that, and to improve accountability. So I'll continue to push for those values. And I am optimistic that recently appointed city manager Badin will support more transparency in future policy making.

Well, Council Member Jensen. I don't believe we've ever drafted a ballot measure in public with the League of Women Voters assisting. And there's a lot of reasons for what we did. Some of it was Brown Act. I take exception to the inference that the public was not informed. The public was extensively informed over a series of mailers by social media by being able to take both an online survey and to do their own freeform comments. And our consultants that we're working on have told us that they have never seen a city with such robust response to the outreach as we've had in Alameda. And that's because I think we have very engaged citizens. So I hope we can all get together and find some things we can agree on, which is the need for our infrastructure to be supported and improved. And we can all find something to criticize. That's not hard. We're humans. Maybe some felt left out of the process. The suggestion that we did what we did with the charter behind closed doors, behind those closed doors were the city attorney, who you just complimented, and the city clerk. And I think we all have the highest regard for both of those individuals. I am taken aback by the inference that something sinister was going on behind those closed doors. With 2020 hindsight, maybe we could have taken more time for outreach. We thought it was pretty straightforward to ask the voters, what would you like to do? And there was plenty of time for forums once the measure was on the ballot. And some people see that exercise of democracy in a different way. I wasn't afraid. I didn't know what the outcome was going to be, but I thought it was a fair question to ask after almost 90 years. But on to the positive. Ibn Shan, city attorney, I am going to miss you tremendously. I did also want to just share with you Our illustrious Alameda couple, the Bontas, the attorney general and the assembly member, they're out of town right now. But they sent their best wishes. And of course, the attorney general sent his government relations person. It has been a pleasure, and we're going to continue to keep in touch. Just really quickly, what I've been up to, and I'm going backwards. Last night, I had such a nice evening. I carpooled out to Berkeley. Oh, my goodness, to the Faculty Club, Tony, Council Member Dasek. You know where that is. It's a Bernard Maybach building. I've never. Oh, and you're at Laura's. My graduation was there. Was your graduation there? It's a beautiful Bernard Maybach building. I said, I feel like we're in summer camp. It's beautiful. But luckily, one of the fellows from AMP went to Cal, and he led us down there. And then, of course, it was dark on the way back, but Tim Haynes had the flashlight function on his phone and let us out. But because we were there for NCPA, the Northern California power agency, and the staff of the various state legislators who are on the Energy Committee and whatnot. And it's several days long, because today they were up at Healdsburg. But yesterday, they did a whole tour. They were at Alameda, at Kairos, and at someplace else. Abby took the monitor. Where was it?

Do you remember?

I saw the schedule, but I didn't get to go. But everyone loved seeing Alameda. And then I just gave some remarks at the dinner. And on Sunday this weekend, I was asked to be the keynote speaker at a Key Club event out at Crab Cove. And the Key Club is a high school organization sponsored by Kiwanis Club. But this was northern California. They came from as far away as American Canyon. and Fairfield, and Pittsburgh, and on the peninsula. And it was just so inspiring. They're doing research for pediatric trauma cases. And also, I said in my remarks, which by the way, Alyssa Tomford is sitting in the audience, and she's helping with communications. She did lovely draft remarks for me that I just personalized a little bit. We're talking about how youth are raising money for scholarships for other youth so kids have a chance to further their education. Anyway, it was so inspiring to be with them. And then Saturday, there's a lot going on in Alameda, was Relay for Life and a great turnout at Leydecker Park at Bay Farm Island, Harbor Bay. And right off the bat, the Stanford Medicine, well, we have Stanford Medicine, two different offices in Alameda. But the Stanford Medicine Cancer Center donated $10,000 to Alameda's Relay for Life. There was a big team from UCSF. And there was one team, it was pretty heart wrenching. They were walking for a young woman, just finished her freshman year of high school, and was diagnosed with cancer in her eighth grade year at St. Philip and is back in the hospital now for for treatment. So her name is Chiara. So just keep her in your prayers. But that's what Relay for Life, it's worldwide now. And they raise literally billions of dollars for cancer research, for education, prevention, diagnosis. And what I said when I made my remarks is that, These fundraising efforts through the American Cancer Society are all the more important now as the federal government has cut back funding for things like the NIH and CDC. But it was lovely to be there. And then last Friday and Thursday, I was in Redondo Beach for League of California Cities board of directors meeting. interviewing for boards and commissions until the cows come home. And then let's see what else I think. Oh, and then on Friday, July 10, I got to go to a change of command ceremony at the Coast Guard sector of San Francisco. So that's down at . on Treasure Island. I will tell you, I am a prolific public transportation user. But it didn't quite work. I got over there on the Seaplane Lagoon ferry to the Treasure Island ferry. But it's not very close to where I needed to be. But luckily, the Uber finally came. And then also, luckily, there was representation from WIDA at the ceremony. And I knew that one of the fellows lived in Alameda. So I hitched a ride back with him. And the city manager and I attended the Alameda County Mayor's Conference at a meeting on Wednesday, July 8, in Pleasanton, back in his old stomping grounds at the WeWork facility, which is pretty amazing. And our working group on homelessness met before then. And in October this year, it's coming up, the city of Alameda will be hosting the mayor's conference. So I want you all to come, more details to follow. So with that, thank you, everyone. We got a lot accomplished tonight. It's a minute after 11, but we're ending on the same day we started. Thank you, especially staff and audience. Ryan and Trung in the balcony, thank you all for all your hard work. We appreciate you. Travel safely home. Bye bye.