Title
Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 7, 2026. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday- -July 7, 2026- -5:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:03 p.m. and Councilmember Jensen arrived at 5:04 p.m.]
Absent: None.
Public Comment
Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, stated members of the community prefer the development at Enterprise Park to be nature based and accommodating of sea-level rise; other parts of Alameda Point could accommodate a large commercial enterprise.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(26- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Portion of the Alameda Point Enterprise Park Boarded by West Hornet Avenue, the San Francisco Bay, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and the Encinal Boat Launch, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Assistant City Manager Amy Wooldridge, Justin Long, Recreation and Parks Director, Matt Nowlen, Recreation and Parks Assistant Director, and Deputy City Attorney Daniel Turner; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Neptune Beach Surf Club Development Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation; Under Negotiation: Price and terms
(26- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a); Case Name: Miller v. City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior Court of the County of Alameda; Case No: 24CV097206
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding Real Property, staff provided information to the City Council; by unanimous vote - 5, the City Council directed staff to schedule a City Council community workshop in the fall, including but not limited to exploring and considering the merits of a surf park project, any potential Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) process, and community benefits in the vicinity of Enterprise Park; Council further directed staff to promptly return Council to discuss a potential ENA in closed session following the workshop; regarding Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday- -July 7, 2026- -7:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Jensen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Jensen, Pryor, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
Agenda Changes
(26- ) The City Clerk announced that the Charter Amendment regarding the City Auditor and City Treasurer [paragraph no. 26- ] was withdrawn and would be heard on July 21, 2026.
Councilmember Jensen noted that she has two agenda changes; the first requires a supermajority vote; moved approval of withdrawing the Facilities Plan [paragraph no. 26- ] from the Consent Calendar and hearing it before the bond measure [paragraph no. 26- ].
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry about the additional agenda change, Councilmember Jensen withdrew her motion; stated the two agenda changes are: 1) to move the Facilities Plan from the Consent Calendar and hear it before the first Regular Agenda Item; and 2) to move the remaining two Charter amendments [paragraph nos. 26- and 26- ] to the July 21, 2026 Council meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed strong opposition to moving the Charter amendments to July 21, since it is the last meeting before the Council recess; stated the July 21 agenda is already crowded; inquired what the ramifications would be if the Charter amendments moved to the last meeting in July.
The City Attorney responded the July 21 meeting is the last meeting Council can place ballot measures before the voters for the upcoming election; stated if Council is considers ballot measures on July 21 and has significant changes, staff will have to work really hard to ensure everything is captured, as Council will not have another opportunity to see the item again.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether there are other ballot measures that will be heard for the first time at the July 21 meeting, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Auditor/Treasurer amendment has been moved to July 21.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Auditor/Treasurer amendment was rescheduled due to a personal family reason.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of withdrawing the Facilities Plan from the Consent Calendar for discussion and hearing the item before first Regular Agenda Item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she may be willing to support moving the Facilities Plan item to the top of the Regular Agenda; inquired the reason behind wanting to move the Charter amendments to the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Jensen responded three Charter amendments are on the agenda; stated all three have not been discussed; she, and members of the public, were unaware of the items until the agenda was published; moving the items will allow the public to review the reports and ask any questions to the Charter Subcommittee.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Charter Subcommittee was named in open session; inquired when the subcommittee was created and announced, to which the City Clerk responded that she does not have the information.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she has no recollection about an announcement of the subcommittee.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not be seconding or supporting the motion to move the Charter amendments to July 21; inquired about the reason for moving the Facilities Plan to the top of the regular agenda.
Councilmember Jensen responded the Facilities Plan outlines all facilities that are necessary to be upgraded; stated some of the facilities included will be discussed in an upcoming bond measure; she had not seen the Facilities Plan prior to the agenda for tonight’s meeting being posted and has received comments and inquiries by the public regarding the item; she would like to discuss the Facilities Plan prior to acting on the bond measure.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval hearing the remaining two Charter amendments on July 21, 2026.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft addressed the reason for moving the Auditor/Treasurer Charter amendment.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she believes there has not been sufficient time to receive and review information about the significant Charter reform issues.
The motion failed for a lack of a second.
Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
(26- ) Presentation of Domestic Violence Prevention Video by Alameda Family Services Youth Advisory Board. Not heard.
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
(26- ) Ryan Clausnitzer, Rotary Club of Alameda, announced that he is the new President of the Rotary Club of Alameda; invited Councilmembers and residents to join membership meetings; discussed the work of the Rotary Club.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Boller stated that he would recuse himself from the rent ordinance [paragraph no. 26- ] because he has a financial interest in residential rental property in the City.
Councilmember Jensen whether the modification of the resolution for the salary schedule’s increase the salaries of the City Manager and City Attorney, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the negative; stated the modification adjusts the salary range to maintain an adequate spread for future increases.
The City Clerk made an announcement about the compensation increases for the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk [paragraph nos. 26- , 26- and 26- ].
Urged Council to oppose the Ration Utility Billing Systems (RUBS) ordinance [paragraph no. 26- ], which is a critical tool for keeping maintenance and operational costs down; discussed cities such as San Jose and Los Angeles, either re-evaluating the RUBS ban or postponing adoption: Anil Babbar, California Apartment Association.
Expressed concern about the salary schedule increases; stated residents have been told the City is facing increasing financial difficulties, however, salary increases are being adopted; the City should be more prudent in how funds are allocated; inquired about who sets the compensation packages and if the public is involved: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Expressed support for the RUBS ordinance; stated renters should be allowed to have more control over high expense utilities: Toni Grimm, Alameda.
Discussed her experience with housing insecurity; stated tenants deserve stability; urged Council to support the RUBS ordinance; encouraged Council to pass a full ban on Capital Improvement Plans as soon as possible: Laura Woodard, Alameda.
In regards to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry about the announcement for the compensation increases for the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, the City Clerk responded making an announcement is required by the Brown Act.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would vote no on the rent [RUBS] ordinance.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*26- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 2, 2026. Approved.
(*26- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $9,032,236.15.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year Agreement with Rebuilding Together East Bay Network (RTEBN) for Residential Rehabilitation Rental Projects for Low- and Moderate-Income Households, in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $400,000. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Service Provider Agreement with Jose Fernandez for Graphic Design Services for 36 Months through June 2029, with Total Compensation Not-to-Exceed $93,786.88. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Employment Agreement for the City Attorney, Effective July 12, 2026. Accepted.
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16420, “Modifying the City Council Appointee Salary Schedule Increasing the Salary Range of the City Manager Position by 7% and the Salary Range of the City Attorney by 7%.” Adopted.
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16421, “Modifying the Executive Management Employees (EXME) Salary Schedule Increasing the Salary Range of the City Clerk Position by 14.85%, Effective July 12, 2026.” Adopted.
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16422, “Calling for a General Municipal Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election to Be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the City Charter, and Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of Said Election Pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code.” Adopted.
(*26- ) Ordinance No. 3406, “Amending the Alameda Marina Master Plan to Modify the Affordable Housing Requirement for Phase III of Alameda Marina Master Plan.” Finally passed.
(26- ) Ordinance No. 3407, “Amending Alameda Municipal Code Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced Tenants) to Prohibit the Use of Ration Utility Billing Systems for Utility Charges and Providing a Process for Landlords to Receive a One-Time Utility Adjustment for Rent.” Finally passed.
Since Councilmember Boller recused himself and Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, the ordinance was finally passed by the follow vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Boller - 1.]
Continued Agenda Items
None.
Consent Calendar - Item Removed for Discussion
(26- ) Recommendation to Accept the Alameda City Facilities Plan Including Interim and Long-Term Plans and Strategies to Address Infrastructure Needs for City Facilities and Public Safety Buildings.
The Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Pryor inquired whether the total is $142 million, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the Fire Administration facility is still an issue, since a site has been leased.
The Assistant City Manager responded RRM Design Group (RRM), who conducted the analysis, gave a letter grade to the existing facilities; stated many of the Fire facilities received Bs and Cs; the analysis was based on the existing site adjacent to Fire Station 1.
Councilmember Jensen stated in the implementation strategy and discussion, the Fire Administration building is rated as a B; inquired whether there is still an issue, as there is a leased site.
The Assistant City Manager responded once Fire Administration moves into the leased site, it will be a significantly improved facility.
Councilmember Jensen stated 8 facilities are listed in the report; of the 8, the Animal Shelter is the only facility to receive an F grade; inquired about the Animal Shelter grade and why it is not being discussed for Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) or potential bond revenues.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft introduced the new City Manager.
The City Manager stated Alameda is a full-service City; stated staff is currently trying to get funding started to address some of the needs; this item focuses on facilities the City uses to deliver services to the community; it is always a challenge to meet all of the needs.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated later this evening, there will be discussions on an infrastructure bond; there are three parts to it: facilities, addressing sea-level rise/ climate adaptation, and street repairs.
The Assistant City Manager stated the City is continuing to invest through its Capital Improvement Program; currently, investment is being made for the Animal Shelter; the HVAC system and plumbing has been replaced, along with other improvements; fully addressing the Animal Shelter’s low grade would require moving it into a combined facility, which would be a major project and would require funding from the infrastructure bond or other significant capital to move forward.
Councilmember Jensen inquired about the implementation strategy for potential use of bond funds or CIP funds; inquired whether the interim modular restrooms, lockers, and security lights are already in place, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether it would take place between year one and year three, which are years 2027, 2028, and 2029, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen stated the second interim, beginning in 2029, would be Fire Station 1; inquired whether Fire Station 1 expansion and addressing administration issues would begin in interim two, which is year three to year five, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated it will be challenging to stay on the exact timeline due to funding.
Councilmember Jensen discussed the implementation plan funding needs.
The City Manager stated the plan is relatively new; the CIP fund will not go far enough to keep pace with the plan.
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft stated the upcoming proposed infrastructure bond would help staff apply for grants.
The Fire Chief stated there was an opportunity to move Fire Administration to a below-market rate lease; Station 1 is small and does not meet modern day standards for decontamination corridors, amongst other problems; Station 2 is 105 years old and must be replaced or remodeled; due to costs, staff recommends remodeling; Stations 1, 2, and 4 need seismic updates to meet building standards.
Councilmember Jensen stated the plan indicates the remodel of Station 2 would take place in 2033; expressed concern about the timeline being too far off.
The Fire Chief stated if there was funding, he would push to have it done today; the schedule is the best that can be done with the City’s current resources.
Councilmember Jensen stated any other construction in interim two, beginning with Station 5, would not commence until 2029, at the earliest; expressed concern about the timeline.
The Fire Chief stated ultimately, it comes down to funding to facilitate the entirety of the facility needs; the Public Works Department does a great job of maintaining and addressing issues that arise to the best of their ability.
Inquired whether the bonds would be issued at the same time or periodically; stated presenting $21 million all at once seems unnecessary, as the projects will be carried out over the years; he is unsure why improvements at the Fire stations cannot be less drastic than what is proposed: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated a $300 million bond is being contemplated tonight; the facilities plan includes an implementation plan, which carries the weight of policy; discussed how much of the Fire facilities would be funded by the bond, which adds up to about $158 million of the $300 million bond; inquired whether the amount is correct.
The Assistant City Manager responded the plan is not policy, but rather a framework so Council understands the scope of the need; stated staff tried to be as cost effective as possible; the plan does not commit to a specific timeline; timelines will come to Council on a project-by-project basis and as part of the annual budget.
The City Manager stated the facilities plan is the framework staff set up to add more specificity to the needs for City facilities; the City is responsible for a range of things; there have been many constraints on funding sources and needs continue to go up.
Councilmember Daysog stated this is the exact clear identification of how much money is being slotted for particular projects; expressed appreciation for the item due to the clarity and how it is very specific.
The Fire Chief stated from a Fire Department perspective, staff recognizes the big cost; the pricing shown in the plan reflects the estimated cost if everything requested were done; Fire staff feels confident that in some projects, pricing can be brought down with creative measures and value engineering.
Councilmember Boller moved approval of accepting the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Agenda Items
(26- ) Resolution No. 16423, “Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Demand the Acquisition and Construction of Municipal Improvement Projects and their Financing Through the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds.” Adopted; and
(26- A) Introduction 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 3, 2026, for the Purpose of Financing the Cost of the Acquisition and Construction of Certain Municipal Improvement Projects. Introduced.
***
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated 20 minutes is needed for the presentation.
Councilmember Boller moved approval of allowing 20 minutes for the presentation.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
The Sustainability and Resilience Manager, Jeremy Hauser, Team CivX, and Curtis Below, FM3, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the survey methodology mentioned there were 420 total interviews, which broke down to telephone and online interviews; the chart shows a 62% yes response; inquired whether there is a significant difference between those answering via telephone versus those answering via online interviews.
Mr. Below responded the difference in modes was minor.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the number was for telephone versus online, to which Mr. Below responded that he does not currently have the numbers.
Councilmember Boller inquired about the proposal, in terms of the oversight function; inquired how a citizens group would be formed and how it relates to other communities and work in the area.
Mr. Hauser responded if the measure is approved, Council would undertake a process to select the members of the oversight committee; stated it is up to the discretion of Council for the structure of the committee; not every city adopts an oversight committee for their measures; Team CivX recommended including it.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Aschraft’s inquiry, the City Clerk stated the City has never had this type of oversight committee before; she researched back to the year 2000; the library bond did not mention an oversight committee; in 2008, the transfer tax increase did not include oversight; in 2012, a sales tax measure tied to bonding which did not pass mentioned annual audits by the City’s independent auditors; in 2016, an Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) transfer mentioned a tax administrator may conduct an audit; the 2018 sales tax resolution mentioned an annual audit by the City’s independent auditor; lastly, the 2022 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) measure mentioned annual independent audits.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the City contracts with the independent auditor.
Councilmember Boller stated his understanding is that the bond is structured through community contributions; it is $49 per $100,000 of assessed value of any given property; inquired how the amount was determined, in terms of being the structure for this particular financing mechanism and whether or not any consideration was given to something that is more of a flat tax-based structure.
Mr. Hauser responded before the initial polling, several different financing scenarios were reviewed; stated that he worked with the Finance Department, as well as outside financial experts and came to the recommendation of a bond specifically because of the need and the revenue that can be generated from it; a similar parcel tax would cost taxpayers more on average; based on the need of close to $1 billion in the City, the recommendation is to move forward looking solely at a $300 million rate; financial advisors found that a tax rate of $49 per $100,000 was needed to pay back the $300 million overall bonding capacity over the life of the bond.
Councilmember Boller stated this funding mechanism allowing the taxpayers to spend less over time seems like a distinct advantage; inquired whether the recommendation eliminates the notion of a more progressive as a tax, as opposed to more regressive with an infrastructure bond.
Mr. Hauser responded in the negative; stated with an infrastructure bond, it must be based on the assessed evaluation of a property; while not perfect, he would argue there is some progressivity to it; if you have owned your home for a longer amount of time, it is based on your original purchase price, therefore, you are looking at a lower tax bill as opposed to someone who recently purchased a home at a much higher market value; a square footage based parcel tax was considered, which has been successful for the School District in the past; although this would be the most progressive tax structure, it was not supported.
Councilmember Boller discussed Exhibit A to the proposed resolution and its five categories of funding; inquired whether the project list will be available in the voter information guide; inquired whether it is common to have this level of specificity and the reasons it was done this way.
Mr. Hauser responded the project reads more like a school bond project list, rather than a city bond; stated that he has worked on many city infrastructure bonds where there was not this level of specificity; when looking at a list of infrastructure needs that is higher than $800 million with a bond that does not come close to that number, staff felt it was important to give guardrails to the uses of funds; the document will be available to the public; if the measure is successful, the oversight committee would review the document when future City Councils make decisions about how to spend the revenue; staff wanted something that gave both voters and the oversight committee a good sense of the intent of the measure, while also building in enough flexibility over the life of the bond to not tie uses of funds that make sense today and may not make sense ten years from now.
Councilmember Jensen inquired about the repairing potholes and keeping streets safe and accessible portion of the project list and whether the bond revenue will replace existing revenue streams for maintenance projects, such as pavement, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades and sewers.
The Public Works Director responded existing transportation related funds come in, such as Measure BB and the gas tax; stated staff invests around $4 to 5 million per year in the repaving program, which is insufficient to keep pace with aging streets; the potential revenue would allow staff to deal with deferred maintenance and increase the overall pavement score; transportation funding would continue to be a baseline.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether other sources of funding would not be available for ADA improvements without the bond.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated funding sources are available, however, they are insufficient.
The Public Works Director responded ADA overlaps slightly with the streets; stated ADA, as it relates to facilities, does not have a dedicated revenue stream; some time ago, Council allocated General Fund dollars to the first phase of the ADA Transition Plan and partial funding of a second phase to fund the facilities portion.
Councilmember Jensen stated a sewer tax has been approved twice in the last eight years; inquired whether the bond would supplement those funds, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is a sewer system and a separate storm system; the sewer system has a rate structure that supports capital needs of the system; the storm system, however, does not have sufficient revenue.
Councilmember Jensen inquired how the funds will be used to improve the seismic safety and stability of the City’s bridges.
The Public Works Director responded the original outreach done included a proposed idea of the City providing a backup power source when bridges are non-operational; after further consideration and coordination with the County, it was determined that doing so would best be delivered by the County; currently, no funds would be put towards the Alameda County related bridges.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the survey asked people whether they wanted to support seismic safety for bridges.
The Public Works Director responded the survey conducted in 2025 included seismic safety; stated staff modified the survey after further evaluation; the most recent polling did not include bridge work.
Councilmember Jensen inquired what proportion of survey respondents came from homeowners, renters, and landlords.
In response to Councilmember Daysog’s earlier inquiry, Mr. Below responded 36% of telephone respondents were “definitely yes” and 33% of online respondents were “definitely yes.”
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry, Mr. Below responded that he does not currently have the number for homeowners and renters but will get back to Council with the information.
Councilmember Jensen inquired if this is placed on the November ballot, she understands the City cannot lobby or advocate on behalf of the measure, to which Mr. Below responded in affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether City staff is allowed to advocate or lobby on behalf of the measure, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated City staff cannot lobby while using City funds.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a person could lobby in their individual capacity outside of work, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated anyone in their non-city capacity, not using City funds, has first amendment rights and can undertake activities apart from City employment; City funds, resources, and staff on staff time cannot be used to engage in lobbying.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether Police Officers and Firefighters could not be out during their time on duty or while wearing their uniforms to support this, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated no City employee can lobby while they are being paid by the City, on City time.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether they could identify themselves as City employees while out on their personal time, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated one can state where they work for identification purposes only; they may not use their office for lobbying purposes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about wearing City t-shirts.
The City Attorney responded there are specific laws around use of uniforms however, t-shirts for identification purposes are deemed okay.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:49 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
***
Stated tonight’s vote is about whether the people of Alameda should have the opportunity to decide the future of the City; Firefighters are serving the City with aging facilities that need much modernization; discussed the need for a new Fire Station at Alameda Point; urged Council to trust Alameda residents: Mike Dewindt, Local 689.
Discussed previous tax revenues and other funding measures the City uses to pay for street maintenance; stated the City’s General Fund is precious and is being tapped into for street maintenance; funding sources must be considered; urged Council to give voters the option to invest in the City: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Stated that he has discussed a potential parcel tax at previous Council meetings; all measures do not need to be paid for by property taxes; he does not support a Prop 13-style property tax, due to its regressive and discriminatory nature: Mitch Ball, Alameda.
Stated Alameda County Building Trades (ACBT) would like to continue its partnership with the City if the infrastructure bond is placed on the ballot; urged Council to place the bond on the November ballot; stated ACBT will work to make sure the bond passes: Andreas Cluver, ACBT.
Stated that he appreciates the work that went into establishing the facilities plan, which includes the Animal Shelter; expressed support for placing the bond measure on the November ballot; stated that he hopes one day funds can be used to build a severely needed Animal Shelter: Adrien Abuyen, Oakland.
Urged Council to unanimously support placing the bond before the voters in November; stated that she hopes everyone can come together and give the voters the opportunity to decide where their money goes and invest in the future of the City; everyone has seen and experienced first-hand in recent years the impact of climate change and sea-level rise, which have led to the flooding of roads, houses, and parks: former Councilmember Malia Vella, Alameda.
Stated in order to keep Alameda great, investment in the community is a must; urged Council to unanimously support placing the bond on the November ballot; stated this is the first step in convincing voters why the bond is necessary; while the way this is levied is not perfectly equitable, it is far better than a gas or sales tax, which are inherently regressive: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for Council placing the measure on the ballot; stated Alameda is uniquely vulnerable to sea-level rise; the community must be invested in: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.
Expressed support for the measure; urged Council to place the measure on the November ballot; stated it is a fiscally responsible investment residents should be able to vote on; delaying maintenance is not a cost-saving strategy, but rather the opposite: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.
Inquired when the tax would begin, whether landlords would be able to pass along the tax to tenants, and would the entire $49 still be applied even if only $100,000 bonds were issued; stated he questions the usefulness of an oversight committee; it would be more cost-effective to have the independent City Auditor review it; he does not understand the concern around taking money from the General Fund: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Stated that she would like to create a long-term quality of life for her family; expressed support for placing the bond measure on the ballot so Alamedans can have their say; stated every year projects are delayed they become more expensive and risks to the community grow exponentially: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Pryor expressed support for the item; stated the City’s need is closer to $800 million; the residents seem to be more comfortable with a $300 million bond at this time, which makes sense as most are concerned about the cost of living; the bond can help get started on many needs; the money will be spent on projects that residents have deemed most important; flexibility is paramount; that she is hopeful the bond will pass and there will be strong support by residents; staff and elected officials will be diligent to the needs and priorities of the community; the needs that exist today will not go away; if the bond does not pass, the current needs will become untenable and more needs will arise; infrastructure needs grow more expensive every year they go unaddressed.
Councilmember Boller stated seeing so many people committed to the issue and part of this potential solution to serious problems is encouraging; this is an important moment in the City’s history; the presentation tonight included a specific list of projects that would be authorized; if passed, there will be citizen oversight; tonight’s speakers made compelling arguments; expressed support for putting the measure on the November ballot and letting the voters decide.
Councilmember Daysog stated this is an important moment for all of Alameda; climate change is real and the City must rise to the occasion to deal with it in ways that many other cities across the State do not, as Alameda is an island; the voters must be presented with a clear, specific list of what they are being expected to fund; suggested a delineation of what percentage of the $300 million will go towards each category; stated this is about letting future City Councils decide how to spend the $300 million, it is not necessarily up to the voters; that he believes this and future Councils will think about what is good for the public.
Councilmember Jensen stated maintaining the City’s’ financial stability is her top priority; Alameda does not have the financial resources to address infrastructure needs; the City’s needs are growing every day; a $300 million measure is one way to ensure there is a dedicated funding source for critical infrastructure needs; more revenue options could be considered that would be less regressive and perhaps more robust; however, those options were not considered; expressed appreciation for Councilmember Daysog’s ask for a specific list of what residents are being expected to fund, as she has asked for something similar during her time as a School Board member; expressed appreciation for the facility needs assessment heard earlier tonight; stated the establishment of a bond oversight committee will be an important safeguard and improve accountability to ensure community and facility needs are addressed; the voters of Alameda should have the opportunity to make this decision; expressed support for placing the measure on the November ballot.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated in 2024, Councilmember Daysog and former Councilmember Herrera Spencer refused to place an infrastructure bond on the ballot for the voters to decide; State law requires four votes to put a revenue raising measure on the ballot; in those two years, the City’s infrastructure needs have grown more dire; to hear that future Councilmembers will be the ones to make decisions, it is only if future Councilmembers are willing to make decisions; the voters elected Councilmembers to make decisions; let the voters decide how they want to spend their money; Councilmember Daysog refused to meet with the pollster and the consultants; as an island, Alameda is especially vulnerable; staff is working hard to provide advanced education and information to residents; discussed co-chairing a campaign in 2000 to build a new library; expressed appreciation to City staff for work to bring the measure forward; stated the level of specificity being asked for is untenable for several reasons.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated City staff requested he attend meetings with the consultant, to which he said there was no need to meet; he transmitted his questions to staff on two occasions and tonight, staff answered his questions; the notion that he made no effort to meet with staff is incorrect.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated he did, in fact, refuse the meetings.
Councilmember Daysog stated it was not a refusal; he transmitted his questions to staff and they were answered tonight.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(26- ) Resolution No. 16424, “Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the Submission of a Proposed Charter Amendment to Amend and Repeal Outdated Provisions, Establishing the Policies and Procedures for Such an Election, requesting that the County of Alameda Conduct Such an Election, and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure.” Adopted.
The City Clerk and Mayor Ezzy Aschraft gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Jensen inquired when the Charter Subcommittee was established.
The City Clerk responded she does not have the date on hand but can research it; stated the first time the Subcommittee met was in September 2025.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry about establishment of the Subcommittee, the City Clerk stated Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft established the Subcommittee.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the Subcommittee was approved by Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she announced it during public session.
The City Clerk responded Council did not vote on the matter.
Councilmember Jensen stated in 2019 and 2020, there was a lot of robust Charter reform discussion, which she does not see in the recommendation; inquired whether those were discussed and reviewed by the Subcommittee.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the Subcommittee discussed eliminating the positions of the City Auditor and the City Treasurer, however, it will not be heard tonight; stated she conducts Boards and Commissions interviews with staff and discussed the process; discussed a requirement for the Public Utilities Board.
Vice Mayor Pryor noted Section 12-4 states: “Keep fiscal books and records for each utility under its control and management in the manner prescribed by the California Railroad Commission.”
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed Section 10-7.
Vice Mayor Pryor discussed the changes to Section 10-7 proposed by the Subcommittee.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Subcommittee consulted with the AMP General Manager about what would be practical in today’s day and age; the changes made consisted of updating and cleaning up the Charter.
Councilmember Boller stated Section 2-3 exempts particular staff members from civil service; inquired about the reasoning behind the change.
The City Attorney responded the changes are to adopt existing practice, which was approved by Council a year prior during budget hearings; stated this allowed the Mayor to have an assistant, given her busy schedule; when the Subcommittee met, it was thought that the Charter be revised to be consistent with the existing practice that was authorized by Council.
Councilmember Boller stated Section 2-10 deals with vacant office appointments; inquired whether the changes made are conforming to existing practice.
The City Clerk responded this change was made in response to potentially running into a situation where it could be difficult to fill in the amount of time; stated the Subcommittee attempted to make the timing more reasonable with regard to the current environment.
In response to Councilmember Boller’s inquiry regarding Section 10-7, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the language is now in Section 10-3.
Councilmember Boller inquired about the changes made to Section 28-3, regarding the Historical Advisory Board (HAB).
The City Clerk responded those changes were made to match what is currently in the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC); stated the HAB seats have already been following the AMC.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the AMC conflicts with the Charter, to which the City Clerk responded the AMC delineated the seats more specifically.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed how many members are in the HAB and the seat requirements.
The City Clerk stated the seats have been in place for a long time.
Councilmember Boller stated a section discusses the City Attorney commencing litigation with either Council approval or written instruction by the City Manager in some circumstances; inquired whether this section could be explained.
Vice Mayor Pryor responded that Councilmember Boller is referring to Section 8.2.
The City Attorney responded there has been a longstanding City Attorney opinion from well before his time that indicates litigation can only be commenced by Council authority alone; stated the City Attorney’s office has always consistently followed that practice; the Subcommittee is conforming the Charter provision to the City Attorney opinion from quite a while back.
Councilmember Boller stated there is a section that discusses public utilities accounting, where changing the selection for the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) from the City Auditor to the City Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired which section this is referring to, to which the City Clerk responded it is Section 12-4; stated Council has been approving those contracts for a long time.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether this is existing practice, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative; stated they are no longer following the California Railroad Commission.
Councilmember Boller stated when he first read the changes, he was unsure how much substance was behind them; the explanations have been very helpful; inquired whether the City Attorney’s analysis would be a part of the process, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated State law requires the City Attorney’s office to prepare an impartial analysis, which they complete for every ballot measure.
Councilmember Jensen stated the changes made to Section 7-2(J) seem to eliminate Council’s consent for technical advisory experts appointments.
The City Clerk responded the changes were made to conform with existing practice.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether technical advisory experts have not appointed by the Council historically or in practice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that section discusses the compensation, as opposed to who appoints them.
Councilmember Jensen stated the changes eliminate the consent; it appears that historically, technical advisory experts or boards have been appointed with the consent of Council; requested clarification on whether that is being eliminated.
The City Clerk responded Section 7 pertains to the City Manager; stated the City Manager has been doing this already, especially for contracts under the Council’s authority; suggested adding titles to each section to explain what the overarching article refers to and provide clarity.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated adding titles would be helpful.
Suggested Council vote yes on this item; noted when doing a read-through for gender neutral language, one word was missed: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed concern with the proposal lumping together over ten different amendments; stated it is disingenuous to present this to the voters, as this is not a simple language cleanup; there are many substantive changes; expressed concern with potential legal risks to the City; urged Council to vote no on the item: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City needs and has qualified architects on the HAB and a licensed contractor that is being reappointed; the language removed was vague and non-specific; the Subcommittee added up-to-date types of engineers and eliminated the mining engineer position, as it is no longer relevant for the Public Utilities Board; inquired about the cost of placing many ballot items on the ballot.
The City Clerk responded the Registrar of Voter’s current practice is to charge cities double if more than four measures are placed on the ballot; stated City Clerks across the County have been trying to work with the Registrar; that she is unsure whether the current practice will be modified for this election since the Registrar has not provided the information yet; discussed the City of Albany’s experience with being charged double for placing more than 4 measures on the ballot; stated cleanup measures have lumped together changes in the past; the voters seem to understand it; a phrase has been added to the ballot question for further clarification.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether there is any legal risk to consolidating the issues together.
The City Attorney responded the speaker may have been referring to the single-subject rule, which has not been enforced by California courts against Charter amendments in modern times; stated cities regularly place consolidated omnibus Charter amendments to the voters and are regularly approved across the State.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he will not be supporting the measure; the process that was adopted by Council and implemented in 2019 and 2020 when he and former Vice Mayor Knox White were a Charter reform committee is something that should have been done in this case; there was a robust process in which the prior subcommittee reached out to organizations, such as the League of Women Voters and Alameda Citizens Task Force, to then return to Council to explain the process; that he believes the process has not been as well served as it was in 2020.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog could point to anything he finds substantive and controversial; stated that she appointed him and former Vice Mayor Knox White to the prior subcommittee; to her recollection, the prior subcommittee handled topics that were more substantive than simple cleanup.
Councilmember Daysog responded there could be substantive items that are caught too late; stated Council may not realize the implication of the decision; there are many recommended changes to the Charter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog has not had the opportunity to read them.
Councilmember Daysog responded he has read them all; stated he may realize later that the changes are substantive and profound.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated this vote is to place this measure on the ballot to let the voters decide.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated this is a cleanup measure; the reason why it was parsed out from other Charter amendments was because the Subcommittee was simply making language concise and deleting dated references; it is cost prohibitive to place all the cleanup language on the ballot separately.
Councilmember Jensen concurred with Councilmember Daysog about the lack of transparency in the process; stated the Subcommittee was established without any input from the public or Council; while it may just be cleanup, it should have been more transparent; although she will support the item, as they look at other Charter amendments, she may not be supportive, as it is bad government to rush such things.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council must designate a subcommittee to authors the argument, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the City Clerk responded Council can designate one subcommittee to draft both the arguments in favor and the rebuttal, if any.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Boller and Vice Mayor Pryor would like to be the subcommittee that drafts the arguments.
The City Clerk noted the authors will have the authority to decide who the five signers will be.
Councilmember Boller inquired when this rule kicks in and why the same was not done for bond measure item.
The City Clerk responded it will be done at the next meeting for the bond measure item; stated the staff report contains the deadlines; direct arguments are due on Thursday, July 23 at 5 p.m.; additional information will be emailed tomorrow; rebuttals would be due Monday, August 3.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council approves those who would write the opposition, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council could choose from its members who would write the argument against.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she intends not to ask anyone who is running for office to be drafters; it is better practice not to do so.
The City Attorney stated if Council does not choose someone to write the opposition, Councilmembers could still write one without Council authorization.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether it would still have to be submitted on July 23, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Council would designate someone to write an opposition argument.
The City Attorney responded Council doing would give the Councilmember priority in the case that there are multiple arguments; stated the City Clerk would be able to choose who is first on the list; Councilmembers are likely to be chosen in any event.
The City Clerk stated the Elections Code specifies the order of priority; Councilmembers are first, Bonafide organizations are second, and general electors are third.
Councilmember Daysog stated he will be writing an opposition regardless.
Vice Mayor Pryor inquired about the deadline for the rebuttal.
The City Clerk responded rebuttals are due Monday, August 3 by 5 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether July 23 is a Thursday, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of having Vice Mayor Pryor and Councilmember Boller draft the argument in favor of the measure.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(26- ) Resolution No. 16425, “Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 for the Submission of a Proposed Charter Amendment to Amend Section 3-10 Pertaining to Leases and Sales of City Real Property, Establishing the Policies and Procedures for Such an Election, Requesting that the County of Alameda Conduct Such an Election, and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure.” Adopted.
The City Clerk, Mayor Ezzy Aschraft and the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director gave a presentation.
Councilmember Boller requested clarification about the carveout for Tidelands; stated that he understands sales and leases over ten years would require four votes, except Tidelands; inquired whether this means that Tidelands for leases over ten years would be three votes and what the rationale behind this is.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded she was not involved in drafting; inquired whether the language could be read aloud.
The City Clerk responded Tidelands were not addressed at all before; stated it will now read: “No real property of the City, except Tidelands, shall be leased in a period in excess of ten years or sold, except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the Council.”
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated most Tidelands being leased are marinas; the only real way to lease a marina is with a long-term lease; the City is not allowed to sell Tidelands, as it is essentially an agent of the State; the only exception is Alameda Point, which has a strip of land where City Hall West is situated; there are a couple of properties where a shorter-term lease may be done, since they are not waterfront properties.
Councilmember Boller stated that he finds the wording confusing; based on the current Charter, there are some things the community wants to require a supermajority; inquired why that same rationale is not extended to the Tidelands; stated staff has indicated there is a narrow class of properties with the marinas; inquired whether the same concerns would apply given the leases are so specialized.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded Council could decide to apply the supermajority to Tidelands which are most often long-term leases; stated that she understands, previously there was no mention of Tidelands; from a development perspective, she cannot see many arguments one way or the other.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Tideland uses are very limited; it is a matter of attempting to get projects moving forward; there is a bit more specificity when dealing with a Tidelands lease.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the Subcommittee felt as though there were issues in the past.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she can remember times when it was very challenging to move forward; stated lost opportunities means losing developers and costs rising; it is a matter of practicality; three affirmative votes is saying something; staff helped the Subcommittee conduct a survey of what other cities are doing; other cities are moving projects along more efficiently; it is a competitive business; the City does not want to lose opportunities to someone else; a balance can be achieved.
Councilmember Boller stated that is a good argument; one must balance it against potential environmental objections; this change, as it relates to the narrow part of the Tidelands, might make it harder for some voters to latch onto this; inquired whether the City Clerk or the City Attorney have additional information, to which the City Clerk and the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired about the geographic delineation of Tidelands from southeast to northwest for the area where the surf project is being contemplated, to which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded it goes past Hornet Avenue.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the portion of the marina where the Hornet is located and where the MARAD ships used to be is also Tidelands, to which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if you keep going up and cut across Waterfront Park, if that is still Tidelands, to which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated the other side of Seaplane Lagoon is also Tidelands; a big portion of Tidelands area runs from where one enters the Alameda Point main gate on the estuary side and the road that is in front of what used to be the gym that goes all the way to the end of Alameda Point; north of the road is also Tidelands; the Tidelands are is large; properties in the Tidelands area are not subject to the four vote rule; for properties being sold, the four vote rule does not count; the City cannot sell Tidelands; the land has to be leased; for properties that will be leased long term, if passed, the four vote rule would not apply for Tidelands; leases effectively become sales through 99-year ground leases.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director noted Tidelands are restricted to 60-year leases.
***
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda items after 11:00 p.m.; the remaining agenda items are the three aquatic center items [paragraph nos. 26- , 26- and 26- ] and the Board/Commission nominations [paragraph no. 26- ].
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of hearing the remaining items.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Boller would be more comfortable if the Tidelands trust language is excluded, to which Councilmember Boller responded in the affirmative; stated removal creates balance; that he is thinking about keeping as many voters as possible; he would hate to add extra confusion and potential environmental concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can see it going both ways; she would like to get this on the ballot.
The City Attorney stated as currently written, the Tidelands would be exempt from the four-vote requirement, no matter how long the lease is; the current question on the table is whether Tidelands could be removed so it would be treated like any other real property in the City and would be subject to the below ten-year three votes and above ten-year four votes requirement.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated that she agrees the language should be changed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested confirmation that Tidelands property cannot be sold, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated it is prohibited by State law; the only change would be to remove the “except Tidelands” language.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed appreciation for the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director helping Council more clearly see it from her Department’s side.
The City Attorney suggested rather than removing the language, Council could change the language to say “including Tidelands” to be really clear; stated Tidelands are not necessarily real property to the City, but rather of the State; this would make it clear in the future that it will be treated the same way.
Councilmember Boller and Vice Mayor Pryor expressed support for the suggestion.
Councilmember Jensen inquired why it is critical to maintain the supermajority for leases over 10 years.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded a lease over 10 years is much more likely to involve major commercial improvements; stated it is more akin to development in many cases; some may feel a higher bar should be held when discussing a potential tenant coming in and doing major improvements to a building that is more similar to development; it is up to Council’s discretion.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether that exists elsewhere, such as with railroads and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded that is not something she researched; stated only two other cities have a supermajority requirement; staff was calling the cities, Community Development Directors, and Public Works departments and they did not see that nuance, however, at the time of research, staff was not looking for that information.
Councilmember Jensen inquired where the 10-year demarcation come from.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded a lot of leases are up to three or five years and with ab extension can get up to ten; stated at a time when attempting to attract business and bring revenue in for Alameda Point, the City has to keep up; a simple majority is still a majority of the Council; this began under the previous City Manager who came from a planning background and was often frustrated at missed opportunities; the Subcommittee checked to see what other cities are doing.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether there are other cities that have the 10-year requirement.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded most cities require a simple majority.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether, regarding the 10-year requirement, if other cities require a supermajority.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she tries to be receptive and responsive to staff, as they are doing their best to carry out what Council wants to achieve; hearing from staff and the Subcommittee, she trusts their judgement and believes it would be good for Alameda.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated there was an example of a tenant who had a lease years ago that was longer than ten years and had locked in a rate that was so low, it was doing the City a disservice; a robust discussion was had; that she does not want to lock in future Councils to similar situations; some may want longer term leases; it is a nice safeguard.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether this was brought forth by the previous City Manager and the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director.
The City Clerk responded the issue was first raised in 2024.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she discussed the topic with the previous City Manager and the concern was never presented to her.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Jensen is arguing for requiring three votes across the board.
Councilmember Jensen responded that she would get rid of the supermajority altogether; stated that she does not see it as necessary; inquired whether the contract with Greenway Golf is a property lease, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether it required a supermajority vote; stated that she was not on Council when it was voted on, to which the City Attorney responded it was a supermajority vote.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that case is a little more complicated because the parties originally contracted with were not the parties Council discussed more recently; stated that she could get behind Councilmember Jensen’s suggestion.
Councilmember Boller stated the voters have already decided if the character of the City is going to be up for fundamental change and the City’s land is going to be sold or leased long-term, they are making big changes to substantial pieces of the public’s lands; up until now, the voter will has been through the existing Charter and decisions have been made with four votes because the supermajority helps protect and ensure the long term view has the most vetting and support; this is what the voters have already accepted; he feels strongly Council should not extend the rule past ten years on leases for that reason; if Council goes beyond what was noticed, it will require more public vetting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council could make the leases happen by resolution and not by ordinance; there seems to be consensus that a 10-year or less lease could be approved by a simple majority; that she understands suggestions made by both Councilmembers Jensen and Boller.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated that her preference is to move forward with a supermajority for leases more than 10 years, however, she would be comfortable with it needing a simple majority as well.
Councilmember Boller moved adoption of the resolution with changing “except Tidelands” to “including Tidelands.”
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the measure is placed on the ballot and the voters pass it, implementation would begin; two years from now, another measure can be brought forth to make additional changes.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of having Councilmember Boller and Vice Mayor Pryor draft the argument in favor of the measure.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(26- ) Adoption of Resolution Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 for the Submission of a Proposed Charter Amendment to 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 Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure. Not heard.
(26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Wickman Construction, Inc., in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $32,364,200, including Contingency, for Construction of the City Aquatic Center Located at 800 Atlantic Avenue; and
(26- A) Resolution No. 16426, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget Reappropriating $4,998,747 from General Fund Unassigned Reserve to CIP C55400 Expenditure Appropriations by $4,998,747.” Adopted.
The following two related contracts [paragraph no. 26- and 26- ] were addressed together with this item.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Boller stated this project involved many City Councils, members of the community, and the great efforts of the Recreation and Parks Department; the remaining construction and financial risks center around water contamination issues; the cost for the filtration will be funded by the project contingency budget, if needed; inquired whether there is a potential for $3 million more being needed for the problem.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded there is not a potential for it to be $3 million; stated it is an unknown cost at this time that would have to billed against the $3 million contingency; it has to do with ground water movement and water traveling across land; as the area is de-watered, it may attract things that are not on site to the site; staff is unsure whether it will happen, however, as part of the de-water process, regular water tests will be done to meet East Bay Municipal Utility District requirements; it is hard to determine what the cost will be if anything will be found in the water; he believes the contingency of $3 million will be able to handle any of it as it comes up.
Councilmember Boller stated the supplemental memo indicates the annual operating subsidy is estimated to be $400,000; inquired how that relates to other comparable facilities and cost effectiveness year-to-year once it is in operation with the subsidy.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded an ongoing subsidy of some kind will be required; stated initially it will be higher; over time it will dissipate as programming changes and staff figures out different ways to maximize programming; aquatics, traditionally, in almost any city, is not a cost recovery program; staff specifically tries to keep costs low for users, which comes with certain limitations in revenue generation; the facility will be very dynamic.
Councilmember Boller stated the report indicates there is a potential to serve 15,000 people annually, with 100,000 contact points in the programs; inquired how the project is a good fit for Alameda’s current needs.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff is estimating 15,000 individual users; stated existing facilities shared with the School District have regular, daily visitors; staff anticipates being able to grow summer programs and other elements; estimate is lower than what staff expects the numbers to be; currently, staff often has to close or cancel classes when pools close and there is no alternative location; the center will give the City a resilient and long-term facility to operate in order to maximize access for swim lessons and swimming in general.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether AquaTech or the Harbor Bay Club are experiencing ground water issues.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the Harbor Bay Club is concerned about sea level rise, since its pool is close to the trail; stated that he is unsure whether they are experiencing specific ground water; a lot of pools were installed many years ago; AquaTech is a bit higher up in elevation and it may not have as much; discussed the process of removing ground water.
Urged Council to approve the item: Alex Spehr, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed viewing Mountain View and Menlo Park pool with staff; stated they are close to starting construction; she is very excited for the project.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated when visiting the Piedmont Pool, she noticed they had grass in the common area; while it initially looked nice, she assumes it will deteriorate with chlorine, amongst other things; inquired whether there will be grass at the Aquatic Center, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there were additional costs to electrification, however, an AMP grant was received; electrification will also reduce operating costs.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of the staff recommendations for all three items [including adoption of the resolution].
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Agreement with Griffin Structures, Inc. in the Amount of $484,798 and a 5% Contingency of $24,750 for a Total Amendment Amount of $509,548 and a Total Agreement Not-to-Exceed $1,596,548 for Project and Construction Management of the City Aquatic Center.
This item was addressed as part of the Wickman Construction agreement [paragraph no. 26- ].
(26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with ELS Architects, Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $171,470, for City Aquatic Center Preliminary / Conceptual Design Services, including Design Development, through December 31, 2028, for a Total Compensation Amount Not-to-Exceed $3,446,306.50.
This item was addressed as part of the Wickman Construction agreement [paragraph no. 26- ].
City Manager Communications
(26- ) The City Manager thanked Council for the opportunity to serve as City Manager; thanked everyone involved in the Fourth of July Parade.
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
None.
Council Referrals
None.
Council Communications
(26- ) Vice Mayor Pryor stated that she attended the sandcastle competition, Unity Festival and Juneteenth Celebration.
(26- ) Mayor’s Nominations for Appointments to the Civil Service Board (CSB), Historical Advisory Board (HAB), Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), Library Board (LB), and Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the following nominations: CSB: Timothy Erwin and Matthew Hada; HAB: Artur Brito, Hank Hernandez and Rachel Lee; HABOC: Thelma Decoy, Eric Husby and Gerry Johnson; LB: Thushan Amarasiriwardena; and RPC: Erick Bell, Wasley Radez and Ronda Sorensen.
Adjournment
(26- ) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. in memory of Nancy Bronstein, Jim Franz and Judith Lynch.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.