{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY 10, 2022--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The meeting was\nconducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nWORKSHOP\n(22-327) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Cycle Budget Update to Provide\nDirection on Funding Changes that will be Incorporated into Budget Adoption Hearing Materials\nfor City Council Consideration in June 2022.\nThe Principal Financial Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nThe Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the\nLibrarian position.\nExpressed support for reliable broadband on the Island; suggested that Council consider\nexpanding the pilot program in the Library with any remaining funding from the federal\ngovernment: Karen Butter, Friends of the Alameda Library.\nDiscussed racial equity, people struggling to pay a parking ticket or overdue library fines, the\nPolice Lieutenant position and the CARE Team; expressed support for the budget changes:\nJennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Library Director discussed the Library not\ncollecting fines.\nThe Interim City Manager suggested Council approve the following budget proposals: Finance,\nHuman Resources, Library, Information Technology, Planning Building and Transportation, and\nCity Clerk.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Interim City Manager's suggestion.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer made brief comments\nexpressed opposition.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nThe City Attorney's budget was reviewed.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the City Attorney budget proposal.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Attorney responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries\nregarding the Prosecutor position and unit.\nCouncilmember Daysog made comments expressing his support.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the City Manager budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Community Development budget proposal.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager and Community Development Director responded to\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the Program Manager position.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Fire budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager and Finance Director responded to Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the Fireboat.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nThe Interim City Manager and Police Chief made brief comments on the Police Department\nbudget.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Police budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 3, "text": "The Public Works Director made brief comments regarding the Public Works Budget.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Public Works budget proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's\ninquiry regarding parking garage and Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested information.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Recreation and Parks proposal with\ndirection for staff to come back in June with a solution for Emma Hood.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed interest in directing staff to look\nat its own pool, Council discussed the funding amount and the motion was discussed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff returning to Council with information\non a City pool.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Recreation and Parks Director noted the matter would return in July and\nCouncil discussed the matter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 2. Noes: 3.\nThe Interim City Manager made brief comments regarding interdepartmental changes.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the interdepartmental changes.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager outlined the changes in response to Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer's and Daysog's inquiries.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 10, 2022- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held\nvia Zoom.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n(22-324) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Gerry Beaudin, Interim City Manager; Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources\nDirector; Nico Procos, General Manager Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo,\nHuman Resources Manager; and Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst;\nEmployee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA); Management\nand Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals\nAssociation (EUPA); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda\nPolice Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented\nEmployees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management Association (APMA); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that staff provided information and Council provided direction by the\nfollowing two roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:\nAye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; Vote 2:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 5:59\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the workforce changes.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nThe Interim City Manager discussed the options to balance the General Fund budget.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the using funds that would have been set aside\nfor pension.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager responded to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry and\nthe pension reserve transfer policy and specific amount was discussed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 6, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MAY 3, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 10, 2022- -5:59 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The\nmeeting was conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED ITEM\n(22-325) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to\nSubmit to Voters for the November 8, 2022 Election.\nThe Interim City Manager, Miranda Everitt, FM3, and Jeremy Hauser, TBWTH Props &\nMeasures, gave a Power Point presentation.\n(22-326) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing 5 more minutes for\nthe presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMr. Hauser and the Public Works Coordinator completed the presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her experience working on a library parcel tax measure;\ninquired about concern over the polling for the infrastructure bond.\nMs. Everitt responded a two-thirds threshold is very challenging; stated from February\nto now it has become even more challenging due to war abroad and concern about gas\nprices and cost of living; the approach is conservative so the City does not go to the\nballot with something the voters would ultimately reject; negatives would come from\nFacebook, Nextdoor and the whisper network of communities; a two-thirds measures is\ntough in any kind of environment, let alone, one where cost of living is such a concern.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a sliding scale of the bond amount was tested.\nMs. Everitt responded numbers had to be picked and stuck with since it was a 20\nminute survey; stated more time could be spent flushing out amounts with a narrower\nset of mechanisms.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much money FM3 received to do the\nsurvey.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the $37,000 contract amount was approved by\nCouncil and includes the polling, analysis, summary and presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the questions, the\nInterim City Manager stated Council received a summary of all of the questions; the\nspecific, detailed question language was not attached to the staff report.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to get a complete copy\nof the survey questions and responses.\nThe Interim City Manager responded it is not considered best practice; stated it is\ntypical to summarize survey questions and provide the analysis; the document can be\nprovide if Council desires.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired is it public information.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff has not published the survey in detail; it is not\nproprietary; standard questions were asked so it would not be a privacy issue.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she requested the survey at the beginning\nof May and did not receive it; she would like to know if the questions and answers are\npublic information.\nMs. Everitt stated it can be shared, but the context provided by the consultant team is\nreally important in interpreting the results; an opposition campaign could use the\ninformation; ultimately, the decision is up to legal counsel.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City\nAttorney.\nThe City Attorney stated the survey is not subject to attorney client privilege; in some\nways, up to Council discretion; two potential Public Records Act exceptions could be\nused; one is a balancing test whether public interest in disclosure is outweighed by\nother considerations; it might also qualify for deliberative process.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted some pages have truncated questions.\nMs. Everitt stated that was a formatting mistake.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted demographic data was not provided.\nMs. Everitt responded the data was collected.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated she thinks the data should be provided.\nMs. Everitt noted the data includes party registration, location in the City, age, gender\nand other demographic information.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be interested in the\ndemographic data being shared.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Ms. Everitt reviewed the infrastructure bond\nresponses; stated the highest priorities were response times, bridge upgrades and flood\nprevention; some questions were regarding housing and some were general purpose.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries, the Interim City Manager\nreviewed the survey results, revenue generation, two-thirds voting threshold and\naffordable housing.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, Ms. Everitt reviewed the\nvarious yes percentages needed to meet the two-third threshold.\nMr. Hauser noted the percentages fall within the margin of error.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the survey was done in February; inquired\nwhether inflation going up would have an impact.\nMs. Everitt responded her conservative assumption would be that the numbers would\nbe lower with increased concerns about cost of living.\nThe Interim City Manager stated if Council is interested in in pursuing the infrastructure\nbond, more detailed questions could be asked; there could be a deeper conversation\nwith voters about infrastructure things that matter, such as sea level rise.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her library bond experience and the importance of the\nballot measure giving voters what they want; expressed support for taking a deeper\ndive.\nUrged Council not to move forward with the cannabis tax; discussed jobs and taxation\nof cannabis businesses: Steven Chow, Stiiizy Alameda.\nExpressed opposition to the cannabis tax and business tax; stated businesses are just\nrecovering from the pandemic; infrastructure funding is needed: Ron Mooney,\nDowntown Alameda Business Association.\nDiscussed his cannabis business; urged Council not to move forward with the local\ncannabis tax, which would be a burden to local businesses; stated there has not been\nany outreach to local operators: John Ngu, Embarca.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 9, "text": "Outlined his cannabis company's formation and plans to move the headquarters to\nAlameda; stated the proposed tax would put the plans in doubt; urged the Council to\nvote no on the tax proposal: Scott Palmer, Kiva Confections.\nStated that she took the survey and was fairly cautious in what she would and would not\nsupport because she was not sure where the information was going; the emphasis\nseemed to be on the funding mechanism; she is a values voter; showing things will help\nwith sea level rise and climate change is critical; encouraged more community\nengagement: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nStated that she was priced out of Alameda; discussed the market collapse in the\ncannabis industry; stated the industry cannot absorb an additional tax; the tax would be\npaid by patients and consumers: encouraged having stakeholder lead process and a\nvoluntary tax agreement: Nara Dahlbacka.\nStated agencies throughout California are currently reducing or eliminating local excise\ncannabis taxes, including Humboldt, Lake, Monterey and Sonoma counties and the\ncities of Bellflower, Berkeley, Desert Hot Springs, Long Beach, Oakland, Palm Springs,\nSan Diego, San Francisco, San Jose and many others; the tax being proposed would\nonly further harm the viability of cannabis businesses and drive more people to the\nblack market; discussed his business: Aaron Kraw, Park Social.\nStated that he is a cannabis union worker and opposes the cannabis tax; discussed\njobs being jeopardized: Zachery Gilmore, United Food and Commercial Workers Union.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is very unsupportive of the cannabis tax,\nwhich would be problematic at this point in time; after the cannabis industry has\nmatured and stabilized, some form of tax can be considered, but it probably will not be\nin the next five years; the research is pretty clear; there would be a negative impact on\nbusinesses; the business license tax is similar with everything businesses are going\nthrough; the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is probably a little premature given that\nthe travel industry has not rebounded in any meaningful way; the TOT could come back\nin a few years when the economy has shifted; he shares concerns about how razor thin\nthe two-thirds support is for an infrastructure bond, but thinks it should be probed a little\nbit further; the poll found that people were concerned about traffic safety, traffic\ncongestion, homelessness and housing costs; he hopes Council could make some kind\nof minimum commitment to looking at supporting replacement of Emma Hood, which is\nprobably going to be shutting down sometime this summer or fall; he would be very\nopen to staff coming back with alternative funding suggestions if the pool is not a good\nfit for an infrastructure bond.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated a measure is\njeopardized if voters are not given what they say they would support; there are other\nways to support Emma Hood; the public needs a better understanding of what an\ninfrastructure bond would look like; she would like to see TOT explored; Alameda's TOT\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 10, "text": "is less than surrounding communities, including San Leandro, Oakland and Emeryville;\nthere is no reason the City should not at least be equal to said cities.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is interested in exploring both the TOT and\ninfrastructure bond; Alameda has huge infrastructure needs; the influx of federal funding\nalso requires local investment; the Climate Action Resiliency Plan (CARP) and traffic\nsafety response times need to be prioritized; the infrastructure bond has been put off for\nmany, many years; more detailed questions should be asked; the timeline is quick;\nsince it is the greatest need, exploring an infrastructure bond would be of interest; the\nbond would only cover a fraction of the overall need; she has zero interest in cannabis\nor business license taxes; the cannabis tax is incredibly regressive; a fledgling industry\nis competing against the black market; the business license tax should not be increased\ncoming out COVID when the City had to help businesses.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly opposes the cannabis tax; discussed\ncannabis being sold on the black market; stated it is not the time to increase the\nbusiness license tax.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated when it comes to infrastructure, the issue is not a\nrevenue problem; the problem comes down to spending priorities; in the past five years,\n$46 million has been spent because of the unfunded liabilities policy; all of the City's\nleggs have gone into one basket with regard to excess reserves; before going after new\nrevenues, the City needs fiscal priorities and does not deserve to ask taxpayers to\nshore up inadequacies; he does not see how $95 million can be figured out in two\nmonths; the wiser course of action is to spend more time researching needs; since the\nproblem lies with prioritizing revenue, he would oppose the measure.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Vella in\nregards to cannabis; she strongly supports businesses; continued support is critical;\nrequested the TOT information be displayed again and outlined rates; stated the\naverage is 10.27%; Alameda is in the middle; she does not support the business license\ntax; she has serious concerns about an infrastructure bond; residents and the business\ncommunity are struggling right now; imposing more taxes goes in the wrong direction\nduring a high inflation period; $95 million would not stretch as far; revenue generating\nassets have been flipped to become expenditures, such as homes at Alameda Point\nbeing used for transitional housing and the bottle parcel not being sold; discussed high\ninflation; stated the City should help businesses and residents stay in town.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the budget presentation up next mentions the pension\npolicy; discussed the unfunded accrued pension liability; stated a few years ago, there\nwas $200 million in deferred maintenance across the City, not including Alameda Point;\nthe commercial construction index is going up by 14% per year; deferred maintenance\njust gets more and more expensive; whether or not infrastructure needs should try to be\ntackled through a bond is a policy decision; discussed TOT rates; stated immediate\nneighbors are all up around 14%; there could be a phased approach or tie to economic\nconditions, so the increase does not hit while hotels might be struggling.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he brought up the TOT years ago; Union City has a\nrange with the amount determined by the City Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is in favor of staff\nlooking into the TOT.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated it probably only results in\n$200,000 to $300,000, which is better than nothing; visitors pays the tax, not local\nresidents.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated people pay a higher TOT in neighboring cities; it is time to\naddress climate change; bond funds could be leveraged to get even more money;\nfederal grants are available, but require some matching funds; she would like staff to\nbring back a more detailed plan for further polling on the infrastructure bond.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would not necessarily want to move forward\nwith the infrastructure bond if there are two very hard noes since four votes are required\nto put a bond measure on the ballot.\nThe Interim City Manager confirm the infrastructure bond requires four votes; stated\nother items, such as TOT, have a three vote threshold.\nCouncilmember Knox White suggested the motion be bifurcated.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of exploration of a TOT tax, including\ndirection to staff to do additional outreach to identify what hotel owners see as a\npotential impacts.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would only move approval of giving direction\nto do additional exploration on the infrastructure bond if there are four votes; he does\nnot want staff to spend time on something that would not get four votes in the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated perhaps, with additional information, some might take a\ndifferent position.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated two Councilmember expressed that they\nideologically have a problem with moving forward; he is a strong supporter of the\ninfrastructure bond, but does not want to have staff spend time unless there are four\nvotes to move forward with additional research.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 12, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated if there is an openness to gathering more information,\nstaff is willing to do the work; a significant amount of infrastructure needs to be\naddressed.\nVice Mayor Vella stated being one vote short of putting the measure before the people\nof Alameda is disappointing; allowing voters to make a decision is direct democracy;\nwhile Councilmembers may individually disagree philosophically, she would hope that\nher colleagues would put it to a vote of the people.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his grave concern is the reserve policy that has been in\nplace since 2017 without the vote of the people; $46 million has been spent on\nunfunded liabilities; the policy needs to be fixed, as well as other spending priorities.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred the policy needs to be revisited, which the Interim City\nManager indicated would be done; Alameda has an existential climate change threat;\nmore information is need.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there is a commitment to bring back and revise the\nreserve policy; infrastructure funding will not be fixed from said discussion; the issues\nare separate; addressing concerns about the reserve policy will not fix the infrastructure\nproblem; the City will still have an unfunded infrastructure need as well; inquired\nwhether Councilmember Daysog is open to having a conversation with staff in the next\nfour weeks; stated the conversation would not be committing to support a measure\ngoing on the ballot, but would be to see if there might be pieces of a supportable\ninfrastructure bond; he understands nothing will change Councilmember Spencer's\nopinion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not see how a $95 million infrastructure\nbond could be addressed between now and late July; educating people previously for\nthe library bond required a lot of legwork; doing a $95 million infrastructure bond\nbetween now and August is not practical; the City should revisit the matter in 2024; for\nphilosophical and practical reasons, he does not see it.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Vice Mayor has a motion.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the votes not being there.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is an opportunity to inform the voters better than they\nwere informed by the first round of polling.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council colleagues have indicated it does not matter what the\nvoters think; they do not want to put the matter to a vote of the people; discussed\npercentages and other measures; stated there is an opportunity to put a measure on the\nballot, which is worth exploring, but the point is moot since other Councilmembers do\nnot support putting it to a vote of the people.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he opposes putting a measure on the ballot\nbecause the City has the wrong reserve policy in place; a lot of money that that has\ngone towards pensions could have gone towards infrastructure.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would have liked more survey\ninformation; the full questions and demographic data was not provided; she has serious\nconcerns that bonds do not have opt outs for people on fixed incomes, seniors or those\nwho are disabled, which can be done with a parcel tax.\nVice Mayor Vella stated unfunded liabilities need to be funded one way or another;\ninfrastructure needs are not being met; the matter should be put to a vote of the people;\nclimate change and sea level rise are real and are happening; emergency services\nresponse times impact lives; many Armenians live in a Federal Emergency\nManagement Agency (FEMA) flood zone and are paying thousands of dollars extra in\ninsurance.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the pension policy conversation came up as part of the\nmidyear budget; a revision to the policy will be coming to Council in June; discussed the\nCapital Improvement Program; stated the City is trying to keep up with deferred\nmaintenance, sea level rise, climate change and redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Mr. Hauser stated the first step would be additional\ntargeted polling to zero in on one specific proposal; at a two thirds level, it is really\nimportant to test the 75 word question and specific projects; the second step would be\npublic information outreach on behalf of the City, including outlining the infrastructure\nneeds and how a bond might be able to address the needs; additional feedback would\ncome from a voter opinion survey of 500 residents; once a measure is placed on the\nballot, the City cannot advocate for or against its passage; an independent campaign\ncommittee would have to be formed in order to advocate either for or against the\nmeasure.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether there is a motion to go forward with additional\npolling.\nVice Mayor Vella stated she is not hearing Council colleagues are interested in a\nmeasure; she does not know if a motion will pass, but is happy to make one.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of additional polling with the intent of putting the\nmeasure through.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City should give the public a little\nmore time to be informed and bring back information.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-10", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not think the consultant should be\nasked to go and do polling; it is not about finding out what happens when voters are\neducated; he will not support the motion; the City has a lot of work to do; he does not\nsupport directing staff to go do additional work with consultants and spend funding on\nconsultants for an item that has no path to actual enactment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:02\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued May 3, 2022 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 10, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-10.pdf"}