Title
Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on July 21, 2026. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Meeting
Tuesday- -July 21, 2026- -5:00 p.m.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:01 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Boller, Daysog, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmembers/ Commissioners Daysog and Jensen arrived at 5:10 p.m.]
Absent: None.
Consent Calendar
Vice Mayor/Vice Chair Pryor moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Boller seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Daysog and Jensen - 2.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*26- CC/26- _SACIC) Recommendation to Approve City Manager Gerry Beaudin, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Economic Development Division Manager Dwayne Dalman, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian as Real Property Negotiators (Alameda Theatre & Cineplex, 2317 Central Avenue). Accepted.
(*26- CC) Recommendation to Approve City Manager Gerry Beaudin, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse Manager Alesia Strauch, Jones and LaSalle Managing Director Francisco Torres, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian, as Real Property Negotiators for Building 43 at Alameda Point, 2440 Monarch Street, Alameda CA 94501 (Scolari’s Restaurant, Inc, Chopper Guys). Accepted.
Public Comment
Kyle Connor, Alameda Theater, stated that he is ready, willing, and able to move forward; that he is excited to work with the City and Council and expressed support for improving the financial future in Alameda.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(26- CC/26- SACIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: 2317 Central Avenue (Alameda Theatre), Alameda, CA; City/SACIC Negotiators: City Manager Gerry Beaudin, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Economic Development Division Manager Dwayne Dalman, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, SACIC, and Alameda Theatre & Complex; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease and Loans
(26- CC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: 2440 Monarch Street (Building 43), Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: City Manager Gerry Beaudin, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse Manager Alesia Strauch, Jones Lang and LaSalle (JLL) Managing Director Francisco Torres, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Scolari’s Restaurant, Inc, Chopper Guys; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease
(26- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation; Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(2); Number of Cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action); Plaintiffs: Alameda Marina LLC
(26- CC) 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
***
Vice Mayor Pryor left the meeting at 6:04 p.m. and returned at 6:10 p.m.
***
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Alameda Theater, staff provided information and Council/SACIC provided direction by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Boller, Daysog, Pryor and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember/Commissioner Jensen - 1; regarding Building 43, staff provided information and Council provided direction by unanimous vote - 5; regarding Potential Litigation, the City Council approved a proposed settlement with Alameda Marina relating to a dispute in Development Impact Fees and authorized the City Attorney to execute a Settlement Agreement containing the following terms: 1) City waives park and transportation impact fees in amount of $2,318,399, which is an increase of $218,399 due to California construction cost index increases; 2) the Foundry shall pay all remaining impact fees, i.e. $770,520, by October 31, 2026; 3) the Foundry shall comply with new inclusionary housing ordinance, i.e. 21 very low income housing units; 4) if the Foundry does not pull building permits by October 31, 2026, the fee waiver shall be null and void; and 5) the Foundry shall waive all current and future claims it has against the City, which carried by unanimous vote - 5; and regarding Existing Litigation, the case involves a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Mhisani Miller against the City of Alameda after he was struck by a City vehicle while exercising at a City park and sustained injuries requiring significant medical attention; the City Council authorized the City Attorney to resolve the case for $235,000 by unanimous vote - 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:27 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 21, 2026- -7:00 p.m.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember Boller led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Jensen, Pryor, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
Agenda Changes
None.
Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
(26- ) Presentation of Domestic Violence Prevention Video by Alameda Family Services Youth Advisory Board. Not heard.
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read and presented a proclamation recognizing the City Attorney, which was followed by brief comments.
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
(26- ) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), outlined AHA statistics; urged interested parties to request information regarding the Housing Choice Voucher Program; discussed property interest lists generating 9,000 applications; urged interested parties to check the AHA website and newsletters for new lists.
(26- ) Damian Mason, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, Oakland Alameda Adaptation Committee and Alameda Backyard Growers (ABG), expressed support for the City funding upgrades to storm drain and sewer infrastructure, and for implementing nature-based shoreline protections; discussed protected California-native coastal live oak trees of 10” or more in diameter; noted the trees are resilient to sea-level rise; expressed concerns over removal of smaller coastal live oak trees.
(26- ) Carolyn Mason, ABG, expressed support for the City having funds to upgrade storm drain infrastructure and for implementing nature-based shoreline protections; stated coastal live oak trees are valued for coastal protections against sea-level rise; expressed concerns over the removal of smaller coastal live oak trees.
(26- ) Amos White, 100K Trees for Humanity, stated 100K Trees for Humanity has worked with the City and community to plant over 300 trees in the City; expressed support for the City’s investment in its Climate Action Resiliency Plan; expressed concerns over protected trees along the bay shore being targeted; stated the coastal oak tree is the largest natural barrier to the impacts of climate change; urged Council seek to protect coastal live oak trees on the Island.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Jensen inquired stated that she supports the capital improvement bike share pilot program [paragraph no. 26-__]; inquired the proposed schedule for implementation of the project.
The Transportation Planning Manager responded staff is aiming for March 2027.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason behind the matter being brought forth to Council, to which the Transportation Planning Manager responded the program is part of the Transportation Demand Management Program for the Oakland-Alameda Access project; the project is partially funded by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and provides people with more transportation options during construction in the Webster-Posey Tubes.
Expressed support for Phase 2 of the Oakland-Alameda water shuttle and bike share pilot program; stated Phase 1 of the water shuttle has had strong support and ridership; he is excited for the Alameda Transportation Management Authority (ATMA) to continue being a funding and managing partner with the City; noted bike share fills the last-mile demand for intramodality: Arsh Signh Hothi, ATMA.
Expressed support for the water shuttle project; stated the San Francisco Bay Ferry Board is enthusiastic about remaining committed to seeing the project extended another two years; the water shuttle is a different way to provide ferry services on the Bay; expressed support for the continued partnership with the City and for the bike share pilot program: Mike Gougherly, San Francisco Bay Ferry.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced an upcoming celebration for the Woodstock Ferry.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the amendment to the agreement with TeamCivX [paragraph no. 26- ].
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 and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 16, 2026. Approved.
(*26- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,485,001.89.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Agreement with Alameda Family Services for Social Worker Library Services, Extending the Term through June 30, 2027, and Increasing the Total Not to Exceed Amount to $205,300. Accepted.
(26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Agreement with TeamCivX for Consulting Services on the Infrastructure Bond Measure and Increase the Total Compensation to an Amount Not-to-Exceed $91,935.
Since Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, the matter carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Approve the Project Plans and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Chrisp Company for the Sign and Striping Maintenance Project Phases 7 through 11, No. P.W. 11-25-24, in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,450,265. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Approve the Project Plans and Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Rapid Grading Services for Construction of Paving Project Phase 44, Project No. P.W. 04-26-02 in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,861,295, including a 10% Contingency, and to Delegate Authority to the City Engineer to Approve Issued Amendments and Addenda to the Project Plans and Specifications, and to Authorize Field Changes through the Change Order Process. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize $100,000 in Additional Expenditures with WEX Inc. for Temporary Fleet Fueling Services During the Underground Storage Tank Replacement Project at the Maintenance Service Center, for a Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $415,000. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Environmental Logistics, Inc. for On-Call Hazardous Waste Collection, Transport and Disposal for a Total Cumulative Amount Not-to-Exceed $132,729. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Nute Engineering for Engineering Design Services for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 23 Easements, in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,222,988, including Contingency. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with AtkinsRéalis USA Inc., for Facility Assessment Report Services in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $168,666, including Contingency. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Woodard & Curran to Update the Sewer Master Plan in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $231,481, including a 5% Contingency. Accepted.
(*26- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Two Agreements and One Amendment to Implement the Oakland Alameda Water Shuttle Phase 2 Pilot Project: (1) Agreement between City of Alameda and San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority for Shuttle Operations, (2) Funding Agreement between City of Alameda and Alameda Transportation Management Association to Transfer Financial Contributions from Private Businesses and Associations to the City of Alameda, and (3) Lease Agreement Amendment No. 1 between City of Alameda and Big Yellow Boat, LLC concerning the Vessel Used for Shuttle Operations. Accepted; and
(*26- A) Resolution No. 16427, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 City Budget to Appropriate $730,000 in Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Grant Funds, $1,565,000 in Private Partner Funding, and $75,000 from Fund 231 to Project G36000 (Ala-Oak Estuary Water Shuttle Pilot).” Adopted.
(*26- ) Resolution No. 16428, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget to Appropriate $760,000 in Grant Funds to Capital Improvement Program C63100 (Bike/Ped) for the Bike Share Pilot Program.” Adopted.
Continued Agenda Items
None.
Regular Agenda Items
(26- ) Resolution No. 16429, “Reappointing Timothy Erwin as a Member of the Civil Service Board.” Adopted;
(26- A) Resolution No. 16430, “Appointing Matthew Hada as a Member of the Civil Service Board.” Adopted;
(26- B) Resolution No. 16431, “Reappointing Arthur Brito as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board.” Adopted;
(26- C) Resolution No. 16432, “Reappointing Hank Hernandez as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board.” Adopted; and
(26- D) Resolution No. 16433, “Appointing Rachel Lee as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board.” Adopted;
(26- E) Resolution No. 16434, “Reappointing Thelma Decoy as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.” Adopted;
(26- F) Resolution No. 16435, “Reappointing Eric Husby as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.” Adopted;
(26- G) Resolution No. 16436, “Appointing Gerald “Gerry” Johnson as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.” Adopted;
(26- H) Resolution No. 16437, “Reappointing Thushan Amarasiriwardena as a Member of the Library Board.” Adopted;
(26- I) Resolution No. 16438, “Appointing Erick Bell as a Member of the Recreation and Parks Commission.” Adopted;
(26- J) Resolution No. 16439, “Reappointing Wesley Radez as a Member of the Recreation and Parks Commission.” Adopted; and
(26- K) Resolution No. 16440, “Appointing Ronda Sorensen as a Member of the Recreation and Parks Commission.” Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk Administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Lee, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Brito, Mr. Hada, Mr. Hernandez, Ms. Decoy, Mr. Radez, Mr. Bell, and Ms. Sorensen, which was followed by each making brief comments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the process of interviewing and nominating candidates for Boards and Commissions.
(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 adopted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Pryor gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Jensen expressed support for the need and relevance of the positions; stated new laws have recently been implemented to provide independent oversight of financial transactions and audits; inquired about the laws which have been implemented and how they pertain to Alameda.
The City Manager responded generally there is a budget piece and the investment portfolio; stated Council reviews the City’s investment portfolio and policy as a newer requirement; the budget is reviewed every six-months and government accounting standards come online each year related to reporting for City funding and spending as part of the audit process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about which laws are currently in place that did not exist in 1936 and pertain to oversight of City finances.
The Finance Director stated in the late 1980’s the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) created oversight of accounting practices in local government; GASB issues statements with consistent updates made to accounting practices and accounting statements implemented over the past 40-years; outlined the most recent GASB report regarding payroll.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she previously worked with the City Treasurer on the City’s investment policy; requested clarification about how the change in GASB standards ensures that the City Council is always aware of any findings or deficiencies in the public audit.
The Finance Director stated staff receives a Memorandum of Internal Control (MOIC) from the external auditors which is reported to the City Council annually once audits for the fiscal year have been completed; the City has 8 to 9 external audits per year which are reported to Council with findings; the City has not received additional findings in the past three years.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry about the relevance of the City Auditor and Treasurer and whether the City has received any benefit from the positions, the City Manager stated the positions are elected and included in the City Charter; there is respect for the work being done; new transparency requirements and checks have been implemented; he values the input from the City Auditor and City Treasurer; the City has a number of systems currently in-place; many cities within Alameda County do not have the positions of City Auditor and City Treasurer while being under the same legal requirements as the City of Alameda.
Councilmember Jensen stated the presentation indicated a cost of roughly $31,000 annually for each position; inquired whether there are associated cost savings or financial benefits from the positions, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative.
The City Manager stated that he imagines throughout the years there have been collaborative conversations about investment policies and procedures, but he cannot directly speak to benefits for the City.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she understands the matter is regarding the cost savings and no savings or accruals to the positions.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated the positions are elected and not guaranteed; there is no job requirement for the elected positions; someone who is likeable and fun could win the election and not provide help; her comments are not based on the work that has been done by the current elected Auditor and Treasurer and are based on the future; expressed concerns over position redundancy and lack of qualifications to hold the position.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the position of City Auditor is required to be a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the City Charter indicates requirements for both positions.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the salary cost savings is the basis for the urgency in proposing the Charter amendment.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded every City is facing budget deficits including Alameda; stated the City does not have the means to provide for public safety, homelessness response, and infrastructure; the approach behooves the City as part of the fiduciary duty Council holds; the matter does not make the decision to remove the positions, the voters will need to decide how to spend public money; the amount of work expended for $84,000 per year could be put toward other programs or some other fiscal oversight; she agrees with the comments provided by the Finance Director regarding the many different audits performed by the City; it is best practice to go out with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new auditing firm every five years; noted Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) uses the same firm, but switches managing partners every five years.
The Finance Director stated the City issues an RFP every five years; if the same audit firm is selected, the City switches managing partners.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason for the switch, to which the Finance Director responded best practice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City of Pleasanton has an outside Treasurer and Auditor.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the City of Pleasanton uses a lot of the same services as Alameda with internal staff work.
Councilmember Boller inquired the underlying problem that is trying to be solved; stated that he cannot imagine the matter is simply due to cost savings; the roles have been around for a long time and have important functions; questioned whether there is concern for having two offices, outdated duties, and lack of efficiency or accountability.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she would like to let the voters decide whether they want to continue having the Auditor and Treasurer; she suspects there is a proposal for a hybrid approach to remove one office and not the other; she thinks it would be most respectful to let the voters decide whether to amend the City Charter.
Councilmember Boller questioned the types of auditing performed by the City’s outside firm; stated that he has reviewed some of the main financial audits for the past five years; inquired whether the categories of audits used by outside resources are used for performance, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether operational audits are performed, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the audits performed are for efficiency and economy reviews such as value-for-money.
The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated related types of items are typically uncovered during the financial audit.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether procurement, contract administration, capital improvement projects and infrastructure audits occur with outside firms.
The Finance Director responded the matters are tested during the financial statement audits, but are not generally included; stated the matters are reviewed on a material basis; sample testing is performed for capital improvement projects, correct funding sources, and purchasing/RFPs are sampled.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether some of the reviews look at internal controls, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the reviews occur every year.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether follow-up audits occur to check on implementation of prior findings, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated audits are performed annually.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether outside auditors review for potential fraud, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether policy effectiveness reviews occur; whether auditors are looking at whether the City’s investment policy is still appropriate or not.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is an individual agreed upon procedures to check investment policies.
Councilmember Boller stated it seems the drafters of the City Charter were concerned with the issue of independence; the staff report does not explain how the City would have sufficient independent oversight; inquired what process would replace the current oversight if the elected positions were eliminated.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the independent oversight is something outside auditing firms provide; stated the independent auditing firms look at the City’s finances; the firms are changed every five years based on best practices.
Councilmember Boller stated that he does not know if the subcommittee looked at the question of electoral independence; other cities have appointed Auditors and Treasurers who report to the City Council; there are different ways to look at independence.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Councilmember Boller stated there are appointed Auditors and Treasurers all over California.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the subcommittee reviewed and assessed whether or not the independence feature would be sufficient with the outside auditing firms; stated it appears that some of the audits are not dealing the full array of what could be audited.
Vice Mayor Pryor responded that she met with the outside auditor; stated they perform roughly eight to nine different audits and are extremely thorough; the audit process is in depth; discussed a virtual meeting with Maze and Associates to explain the audit process, which included an explanation of malfeasance; the auditors look at the numbers and patterns, and make best practice recommendations based on results; the meeting was thorough and she feels confident in the process knowing that firms are rotated every five years; the outside firm consists of a team of people performing many different tasks over a period of many hours; the City pays for the service; the elected positions seem outdated, redundant, and unnecessary based on what is currently being paid for and best practices to reduce malfeasance and increase transparency; she cannot speak to things prior to her time on City Council; the process of having the elected Auditor and Treasurer has continued due to status quo; she disagrees with said approach; the voters might vote to keep the positions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a future City Council might decide to hire a consultant to look into the effectiveness of homelessness response; she would argue there is more value in using the money towards a consultant with a specialty in the particular field as opposed to having a single individual be a person for all seasons; expressed support for moving forward in letting the voters decide; noted a robust campaign against the measure could be created if people feel the positions are just as relevant today as they were in 1937; stated there might be new ways of doing things more effectively and economically; the subcommittee put a lot of thought into the matter; the matter is not personal; the current elected Auditor and Treasurer have devoted and engaged members of the community to do a great job; there is a question of whether the positions are still relevant for the City especially with budget constraints; expressed support for allowing the voters to decide whether the amend the Charter provision.
Councilmember Boller stated that he appreciates the work of the subcommittee; expressed support for the comments provided by Vice Mayor Pryor regarding the outside auditing firm; stated a good question is posed to the current elected Auditor and Treasurer; questioned how the current duties add the greatest value for the City and which duties no longer make sense; stated that the elected Auditor and Treasurer have each served in their roles for over a decade; expressed support for hearing their comments regarding the independence of functions and whether the duties can be replaced by outside firms or another approach.
Councilmember Daysog outlined Charter Article II, Section 2-1 specifying seven elective officers: four Councilmembers, one Mayor, one Auditor, and one Treasurer; inquired who elects the City Auditor and Treasurer, to which the City Attorney responded the voters of the City of Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the voters are tasked with electing not just the Mayor and Councilmembers, but also the City Auditor and Treasurer and whether the officers are accountable to the voters, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated Article VII of the City Charter specifies the roles and responsibilities of the City Manager; outlined Section 7-2.C; inquired whether it is correct that Department Heads are accountable to the City Manager, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated any Department Head appointed by the City Manager is accountable to the City Manager.
Councilmember Daysog stated Article IV is dedicated to the City Auditor; inquired whether Section 4-1 specifies the accounting requirements for persons who wish to hold the position of City Auditor indicating: “The Auditor shall have, at the time of their election, a degree in accounting or business administration or be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant and five years of accounting experience,” to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Daysog’s further inquiry regarding the requirements for the City Treasurer, the City Attorney stated the requirements are correct.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether any Councilmember has held the same qualifications as the City Auditor or Treasurer.
The City Attorney responded that he does not know every possible qualification of every Councilmember so it is difficult for him to comment.
Vice Mayor Pryor inquired how many people work in the Finance Department, to which the Finance Director responded there are 18 full time employees (FTEs).
***
(26- ) Councilmember Boller moved approval of providing the City Auditor and City Treasurer to speak for 5 minutes.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Stated that he has no intention of running for the office of City Treasurer again; he has given 26 years to public service; the comments being provided are relative to the future as a critical position for government to have; he is shocked and dismayed at the matter before Council; at a time where people want more transparency and accountability in government, the current proposal provides the opposite and blindfolds the public; the matter came up previously in 2019 with more outreach and concluding that eliminating the roles was dangerous; he was informed the matter would be brought forth at the time of agenda publication; many of the questions posed by Council would have been answered had the subcommittee reached out; Alameda does not just need a financial expert, but needs an independent, elected watchdog; the ballot box is the only guarantee that provides taxpayers a say in who guards their money; outlined previous incidents regarding telecom loses and a potential $7 million bailout from the General Fund; saving the City the amount outlined paid for years of the services provided; independence helps protect taxpayers and the community; outlined previous pension discussions, retiree medical, and deferred maintenance; he and the City Auditor co-chaired the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Committee; fiscal issues from over the years have now come to the forefront; the Auditor and Treasurer do not create policy, but force better policy through friction which creates new solutions; telecom, Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust and deferred maintenance happened because the Auditor and Treasurer had the courage and mandate of voters to speak up and do the right thing; municipal finance is not the same as investment experience; he has brought specialized knowledge to the position for 26 years; he has provided work on the Investment Policy, deploying cash to generate millions in incremental interest for the City; the positions are worth spending a little money on; Alameda is in better shape than most neighboring cities; the City is protected with independent oversight: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.
Councilmember Boller stated it appears that the proposed Charter amendment is based in some history; the Treasurer had previously been involved in many matters; over time, by the Finance Department took over functions; inquired which of the original duties still remain and which are the most important for independent oversight.
The City Treasurer responded laws exist and independent oversight is designed to find where laws are skirted or compromised; stated the laws in 1937 were likely different than today; having independent oversight is hugely important; the job is still relevant and always will be; companies and cities would not get in trouble if the approach was only geared towards following the law.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the Charter appears to specify that the core duty for the City Treasurer is to guide and review the Investment Policy annually, to which the City Treasurer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the review has taken the majority of time within the role over the past few years; questioned whether there are other tasks which have taken substantial time.
The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated the review is not what he has spent the majority of his time on; he has spent his time on things that he does not publicly tout; he spends time with City staff trying to help develop cash flow models and excess money to deploy more effectively; he has consulted with staff on how to invest OPEB trust funds in new funds; he has been on and co-chaired task forces; the tasks performed go far beyond the Charter descriptions and much is at the direction of the City Manager or City Council; the Treasurer and Auditor were involved with the last bond measure put forth to ensure financial responsibility; he does not believe there has ever been a Certified Financial Planner on City Council; he has helped provide guidance regarding financial questions over the years; staff can similarly respond, but can also come forth knowing that they will receive an honest and transparent response.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the current standing is the most effective way for Alameda to proceed; inquired whether the City Treasurer has spent much time looking at models in other cities.
The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated that he had not looked at the difference until the matter was brought up; Councilmember Daysog’s questions are spot-on; there is a huge difference between independence accountable to the voters, to the City Manager, or to the City Council; the position is different and anyone who has followed the work knows that there are times where not everybody agrees and some people do not like what is said; the honesty and independence cannot be garnered from someone reporting to anyone other than the public.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Treasurer has run opposed in past, to which the City Treasurer responded in the affirmative; stated that he had an opponent in 2016.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she recalls the position being relatively unopposed over the years.
The City Treasurer concurred; stated that he likes to think the reason is due to good job performance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the work done on the OPEB trust; noted that she brought the matter to Council.
The City Treasurer stated the initial discussions for the matter received push back; verbal and physical threats were made during that time; the matter created huge personal and professional risk, however, the topic was important and Council’s actions were excellent; questioned whether the same approach would have happened with a different elected format.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated the Charter indicates the City Treasurer should just review the financial policy as required; inquired what the position is doing that the Finance Department team is not already doing based on the Charter requirements.
The City Treasurer responded that he has provided examples; stated financial teams at Alameda Municipal Power and the City, did not call out issues at a time; there has been a budgeting process for over 100 years in Alameda where no one called out long-term liabilities; the role of independence and reporting to the voters provides the ability to speak out; the role of City Treasurer could be expanded with a thoughtful approach to what an Auditor and Treasurer could do by Charter; the Charter should be more robust; a lot of the actions taken over time would benefit people had they been listed in the Charter; actions have been taken at the request of Council, City Managers, and the public; the proposed Charter amendment has the opposite effect and is indicating the City does not need independent oversight; expressed concern over the wrong message being sent.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City Treasurer feels as though he is performing work based on the people of Alameda or as a staff member of City Hall.
The City Treasurer responded that his position is completely independent; stated that he has full respect for City staff even when not seeing eye-to-eye.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City Treasurer feels as though he is accountable to the people of Alameda, to which the City Treasurer responded in the affirmative; stated the actions he has taken over the last almost 30 years demonstrate said feeling.
Councilmember Jensen stated Councilmembers often work with other City Councils and learn best practices on developing policies which might work better in Alameda; she and the City Treasurer previously worked on the Investment Policy; work had been done with information from the Alameda County Auditor; inquired whether the related work being done is not otherwise available.
The City Treasurer responded in the affirmative; stated that he works within the related world, pays attention to what happens, and taps available resources with money managers that perform buying and selling; he also works at asking questions of those are being paid as a resource.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she would like to receive comments on actions taken regarding the Investment Policy both during the recession and pandemic that might have been an independent source of information and support for the City.
The City Treasurer stated that everything was chaotic during the financial crisis; he spoke to City Council publicly and privately about the status of the City’s portfolio and where things stood; he held discussions about risks and fielded more questions than answers; he had an obligation to provide clarity on the situation and ended up navigating it well; the COVID-19 pandemic was different; surrounding cities were beginning to perform contingency budgeting if the lockdown continued; he reached out unsolicited to the City Manager and recommended doing the same and performed a budget model on his own running through assumptions from surrounding cities; the value of the actions were observed and a budget expert was acquired and presented both worst-case and mid-worst-case scenarios.
Stated the process in 2019 included an exchange of dialogue including public comment; noted that he has not spoken with Vice Mayor Pryor and rarely speaks with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; expressed concern over not speaking with the subcommittee prior to the matter being agendized; stated that he does not see how the approach is considered good governance or democracy; it is clear that there is little understanding on the matter including the roles and responsibilities of the City Treasurer and Auditor; the elected Auditor does not answer to anyone in City Hall; he answers to the people of Alameda; he cannot be fired for finding the truth or for personal dislike; the public can elect another person in his place; the process shields the rank and file City staff; he has the legal authority to pursue the truth; he has experienced anonymous whistleblower scenarios over the years; outlined a previous theft situation that he reported to keep City staff anonymous; stated that he has experienced situations and his independence has saved the City millions of dollars and protected public property; his independence serves as a vital boundary between genuine accountability and the reluctance to speak up; an appointed Auditor serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council; if an appointed employee uncovers something sensitive, devastating, or politically explosive, they face an impossible choice to perform their job or protect their paycheck; fear of reprisal is silence; beyond protection, an elected office provides an anchor of stability against bureaucratic chaos; many staff members have left the City over the past eight years, and the City has cycled through three permanent and four interim City Managers, four Finance Directors, and a string of acting Directors; through the whirlwind of turnover, the Auditor’s office has provided the institutional bedrock the City required; the consistency allowed Alameda to avoid financial collapse; expressed support for City staff’s performance over the years; stated that his guidance has been a benefit to the City; outside auditors perform work to express an opinion on the fairness of financial statements; transactions are tested; auditors are looking for material problems; auditors come out for field work six weeks each year and are not present day-to-day; the elected Auditor is present day-to-day; expressed concern over the time limit to discuss a Charter amendment; stated the Auditor negates collusion, cancels out undue influence, and ensures the books are clean, City staff are safe, and the public is protected; urged Council not to dismantle the only true firewall the taxpayers have; noted that he will not run for office again and has been serving since 1991; the job is tough; facing people in power is not for the faint of heart: Kevin Kearney, City Auditor.
Councilmember Boller inquired the best model for Alameda, whether the approach should be eliminating or refining the positions; questioned whether there are things that a City Auditor can do which go beyond the scope of the outside auditing firm.
The City Auditor responded the outside auditors performs testing on the financial operations as a whole; the firm forms an opinion based on the testing, standards, and experiences; there is merit in having someone other than the outside firm that is around more than those performing field work and generating financial statements; noted people do not call the outside firm to discuss local issues such as business licenses; stated people from Alameda ask the elected Auditor direct questions; stated every time the City hires an outside consultant, the cost is higher than $30,000.
Councilmember Boller stated the Charter indicates the City Auditor provision of authority uses the term “at least” in reference to duties.
The City Auditor concurred; stated the office of City Auditor is at least responsible for the audit.
Councilmember Boller inquired how the City Auditor has defined the duties over the years and what has been performed beyond the core duty.
The City Auditor responded that he has been part of committees to study topics and has questioned City staff while reviewing statements; stated that his view as City Auditor is being responsible for at least the actual audit; anything financial that appears to have an accounting issue or does not follow policy, is fair game; noted that he previously had a question regarding the Golf Commission relative to fees; stated that he asked questions of the Golf Manager who refused to provide the information requested; he stood before Council and asked the same question; incidents occur when reviewing financial information from the City, which an outside audit firm is never going to review in the same manner; the crux of the matter is the independence; Council can appoint a committee, but there is no independence; eventually, someone could indicate the problem is over; with an independent elected, the problem is not over until that person is satisfied; expressed concern over matters getting buried without independence; expressed concern over the similarities occurring in Washington D.C. and the State of California in eliminating an independent office over $30,000 per year.
Councilmember Jensen inquired how the City Auditor has worked to help establish best practices in working with outside auditors, City staff, and City Council.
The City Auditor responded that he has served on committees establishing funds to the deferred pension and OPEB trust; noted the deferred maintenance policy could not be adhered to and his interactions regarding all actions referenced have benefited Alameda in a great way.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry regarding working with the Auditor and informing constituents, the City Auditor stated that information would be provided to the extent desired; provided an example of City staff wanting Council to be informed to a certain level; the information would be provided to the same extent; he has held discussions with the outside auditors regarding policy; outlined his discussions regarding issues with leases at Alameda Point circa 2010; stated questions arose surrounding disclosing back rent and he recommended release as material background information.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she as a Councilmember will hear the audit and should the City Auditor not be available, she will hear from the Finance Director or the City Manager; discussions of material information may not occur or be included as a footnote.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the potential confidentiality of the discussion, to which the City Manager responded not at this point; stated staff is required to have public discussions about any audit findings and cannot decide which findings to share or not share.
Councilmember Jensen stated there are findings and footnotes in an audit; there are discrepancies, material findings, and things which are not required to be reported; the Auditor had been alluding to topics not being robustly discussed as to whether or not they are a footnote or finding.
***
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:07 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
***
Expressed support for the comments provided by the City Treasurer and Auditor; stated the proposal is a dangerous step backwards; expressed concern over the role changing to appointed from elected; stated the power would be stripped from the voters; urged Council work on pressing issues such as finding a developer for Harbor Bay Landing and disclosure on the cost for outside audits: Cathy Leong, Alameda.
Urged Council oppose the elimination of the elected City Auditor and Treasurer and not place the matter on the ballot; stated if the matter is placed on the ballot, Council should oppose the measure; expressed concerns over independent oversight being treated as an obstacle versus a safeguard; stated elected offices hold value and residents get financially qualified experts overseeing public funds accountable to the public: Amos White, Alameda.
Stated this area of finance is not one she is fluent with; expressed concern over the matter being on the agenda and the proposed change to the Charter; stated the City Auditor and Treasurer have clearly provided tremendous service to the City at very little cost; discussed a previous concern from 20 years prior regarding a financial calamity related to pension funding when the City Auditor and Treasurer sounded an alarm: Paula Rainey, Alameda.
Stated the individuals who wrote the Charter as independent from the Council understood that their roles should not be influenced by the Council; putting the Charter change on the ballot does not legitimize the power grab; the City Auditor and Treasurer have shown to be constant professionals and perform a great job keeping the City solvent; expressed concern over removing the elected offices; urged Council to not vote in favor of placing the matter on the ballot: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the concerns over pensions being unfunded exists throughout the State; outlined serving on various boards; stated independent auditors being used by the City have brought many of the same concerns to Council and is a function performed by a hired firm; a firm hired by the City is answering to the City Manager who then answers to the City Council who are elected by the people; she does not agree that the approach strips power from the voters; expressed support for hearing comments from the City Auditor and Treasurer; stated that she owes both an apology for not reaching out prior to the agenda publishing; she believes that the independence of an auditor is something that can be achieved; she receives anonymous reports of fraud and handles them accordingly with confidentiality; the matter is difficult, and in working with auditors, she has not felt as though the position was partisan; she is unsure whether the Council will approve the recommendation put forth by the subcommittee; the matter is simple and should the positions be as important as described, the voters will continue to affirm continuation; expressed support for placing the matter on the ballot.
Vice Mayor Pryor expressed support for the City Auditor and Treasurer; stated that they have provided laudable service to the City; the matter is not a referendum, but she has not changed her mind; noted the Finance Department currently employs 18 FTEs; stated having 18 people watch each other decreases malfeasance and increases transparency; the City Auditor has stated that he has not spoken with herself or Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, but as a Councilmember, she regularly hears from the Finance Director; the approach speaks to the current practices in place; discussed an in-depth conversation with outside auditors; stated that she was asked if she noticed any fraud, which is a standard question regularly asked by auditors; the auditors noted that they protect whistleblowers anonymity as a common, ongoing practice; it is considered best practice to change auditing firms every five years; the City has elected the same Auditor for 25 years; her categorizing the positions as redundant is meant literally and not as an insult; the current Auditor and Treasurer have spoken to many great things, but she has heard very little as to what the actual position performs in addition to what is already being performed by the City’s robust Finance Department staff and third-party auditors; the matter is regarding eliminating the position, not the work done over the past 26 years; if Council approves placing the matter on the ballot, the voters may completely disagree with the recommendation; things have changed.
Councilmember Boller inquired the effective date for the proposed Charter amendment, to which the City Attorney responded when the Secretary of State (SOS) certifies the election results.
The City Clerk stated once the City Council declares the election results, at the second meeting in December, the certification is submitted in a required format signed by the Mayor and City Clerk to the SOS; the effective date typically occurs in mid-January.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the term would end roughly halfway through the four-year term for each position, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether it is fair to characterize the action as a recall effort in ending the service mid-term.
The City Attorney responded the process is not the same; stated the result would conclude the positions if the measure pass and the results are certified.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether it is possible for Council to consider combining the two roles based on how the matter has been noticed and agendized, to which the City Attorney responded the Brown Act provides Council the flexibility to proceed.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether there is legal sufficiency for Council to require keeping only the City Auditors qualifications for the position, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Council could legally choose to make the decision.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether Council can consider expanding the duties of the current positions listed in the Charter by ordinance.
The City Attorney responded the Charter does list the requirements and includes the term “at least;” stated the scope of the duties are not confined by the Charter; it is possible for a Charter officer to take on assignments beyond what is prescribed by the current Charter; the Council cannot assign work unless the Charter indicates otherwise; Council can recommend work to the Auditor and Treasurer who then may or may not take up the work at their discretion.
Councilmember Boller inquired whether the City Council can make the recommended duties explicit and authorize additional functions.
The City Attorney responded the approach of Council recommending work exists today; Council could memorialize existing Charter language if desired through a measure; the recommendation approach would not change existing practice.
Councilmember Boller stated there is a case for modernizing and improving the City’s practice; expressed concern over the substantial work to find the most optimal way to progress forward while receiving public input; stated that he does not see a compelling reason to terminate the two public officials who have served the community in the middle of their terms.
***
(26- ) Councilmember Boller requested 5 more minutes to speak.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of allowing 5 more minutes for each member of Council.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Boller discussed the subcommittee process; stated two Councilmembers work on a matter that is presented to the rest of Council; he took the report information into the community to discuss it with others including the City Auditor and Treasurer; he researched the history of the positions and gained a sense of the accomplishments; the subcommittee is correct that the positions have evolved greatly over time; the Treasurer of Alameda in 1937 had likely been counting coins; the Finance Department has been involved with many complicated things over time; questioned what should replace the elected City Auditor and Treasurer; stated that he is not fully comfortable with eliminating the positions without knowing the replacement; expressed concern over the timing of the matter; stated there is merit to the subcommittee work; expressed support for combining the two positions in the short-term and refining the duties in the long-run; stated the approach would provide Council the authority to consider whether more Charter amendments should be considered such as converting the positions to appointed roles or eliminating the positions if the outside auditor work is sufficient; the proposal would consolidate the positions, preserve the continuity and independent oversight, and give the City time to determine the best long-term model.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be more support for the measure if there was specificity regarding whether the current officeholders could complete their current term, to which Councilmember Boller responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has had two very hard-working individuals in these roles for a couple decades; who will be elected in the future is unknown; questioned whether the Council would be better served by identifying the functions outside of the Finance Department’s independent auditors; stated that she would support having a selection process through the Council to choose the auditor.
The City Attorney stated at this meeting, the agenda title does not allow the Council to restructure the positions to appointed; Council may work within the sphere of elections.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would propose taking the matter incrementally; it is fair to put the matter of continuing to have the positions forth to the voters; the current term would continue regardless.
Councilmember Boller stated that he has spent time comparing a consultant hired by the City versus the voters electing a candidate for the position; it is up to chance to have another person elected as talented as the current City Treasurer; there is risk; the risk is balanced against others; the bigger picture is about coming up with the best governance model for the City going forward; expressed support for incremental steps; proposed a motion to adopt the propose Charter measure using revised language where the City will retain one elected Charter office under the existing title City Auditor, permit the City Treasurer to complete the current term and eliminate the separate office of City Treasurer upon expiration of said term, delete Article V of the Charter including the Treasurer qualification provision in Section 5-1, retain the existing City Auditor qualifications in Section 4-1, amend Section 4-2 to transfer to the City Auditor the City Treasurer’s existing independent duties concerning annual review and recommendations regarding the City’s investment policy together with any related independent reporting or oversight duties.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed motion language has been provided to the City Clerk; stated it is difficult to follow along without the ability to review in real-time.
Councilmember Boller responded in the affirmative; stated that he emailed the language.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she appreciates the proposed motion; inquired why the matter must occur at present and why the issue could not be brought forth in two years after public outreach has been conducted with definable alternatives.
The City Clerk displayed Councilmember Boller’s proposed language; requested confirmation the proposed changes have been captured correctly.
***
(26- ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of adding three minutes of speaking time to all Councilmembers.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Boller responded Section 4-1 should not show additional qualifications of the City Auditor; stated the qualifications of the City Auditor remains the same without adding language; the language shown for Section 4-2 correctly adds the City Treasurer’s role to the position of City Auditor; an additional sentence is needed which reads: “the City Council may establish additional duties by ordinance;” proposed additional motion language in tandem due to the importance of raising the points made by Councilmember Jensen; stated work should be done to figure out the best model; proposed the motion further approve the Council directing staff to return after the election, if the measure passes, with a proposed public workshop process looking at whether to expand the City Auditor’s responsibilities by ordinance to include operational performance or efficiency-type audits, the appropriate procedures for audit work plans and Council recommendations, and an independence to records and access-related type matters, whether financial or audit advisory committee would be useful, how to avoid operational overlap or the creation of an unproductive competing authority, and whether the long-term structure should retain an elected Auditor, convert the office through a future Charter amendment to a Council-appointed professional position, or eliminate the office in favor of an outside audit model with appropriate Council involvement and safeguards; the purpose of the process would be to preserve continuity now, while allowing the City to make the deliberate and informed decision about the best long-term oversight model.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry, Councilmember Boller stated the proposed motion includes direction to staff to return to Council with a proposal for workshops to find the best way to tackle the issues and come up with a long-term proposal for the best governance model.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the approach creating a Council finance committee; stated that she understands that none of the Councilmembers have financial experience.
Councilmember Boller stated the proposed motion includes a discussion of whether or not there should be some type of citizen committee to look at issues which compliment the work of the position; he is unsure if the approach addresses the comments made by Councilmember Jensen.
Councilmember Jensen stated her inquiry is whether a citizen committee needs to be established by the Charter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think there is the desire to move forward to adopt the resolution placing the matter on the ballot; expressed support for suggestions being made; stated the proposed changes merit further discussion; proposed Council table the matter and set up a series of workshops in partnership with the League of Women Voters or some other entity to explore the matter further; noted the deadline for writing the measure, arguments in favor and against, rebuttals, and impartial analysis is short; she is unsure the timeline would do justice to the innovative ideas being proposed.
Councilmember Boller stated that he does not see the proposed changes as being complicated; moved approval of consolidating the offices of the City Treasurer and the City Auditor, allowing the current City Treasurer to complete his term, using the qualifications of the City Auditor for the position going forward, and combining the responsibilities with the additional language to provide the City Council the ability to help authorize additional work and potentially expand the work of the position.
The motion failed for a lack of second.
Councilmember Daysog stated the current situation serves the City of Alameda well; he does not support placing this measure on the November ballot or tabling the matter for future discussions; stated he feels strongly about the role of the City Auditor and the City Treasurer as representatives of the people; it is important to remember the inclusion of both positions did not happen in a vacuum; discussed Alameda’s history.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a lot has changed since 1937; expressed concern about the City Treasurer and City Auditor not having competition during elections; stated that she will always favor letting the voters decide.
Councilmember Jensen expressed support for retaining both positions; stated when serving on both audit and investment committees for an organization with a larger budget than the City, she saw how board members were constrained in the absence of an independent auditor; discussed working with the City Treasurer when she brought forth a divestment strategy for Alameda; stated the same topic was discussed by Council more than six years ago; discussed how the 2020 subcommittee’s work differed from the current proposal; stated in a survey from 2020, it was found that the majority of Alameda residents did not support the Charter amendment because they felt there would be a loss of accountability and they did not believe it was a waste of money; not only is there a lack of transparency but the positions have not been proven to be redundant or unnecessary; there is no evidence that the cost of the positions outweighs the benefits; she is not comfortable bringing forward a decision to eliminate the offices of other elected officials with no demonstrative rationale; she will not be supporting the item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who conducted the survey and what was the sample size; stated to her recollection, the survey was conducted by the League of Women Voters.
Councilmember Daysog responded the survey was led by the League of Women Voters during a meeting held at Mastick Senior Center.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many people were present.
Councilmember Daysog responded he does not remember exactly, but it was a good showing; stated 50 people sounds about right.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the poll is based on 50 people who chose to show up at the event.
Councilmember Jensen inquired how many residents the current subcommittee has polled.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded polling was not done; stated statistics are not being presented; the sample size was selective and small.
Vice Mayor Pryor stated the Finance Department is beholden to the residents of Alameda; they are professionals committed to the welfare of the City; in her opinion, the third party auditors are able to do a much deeper dive than an elected City Auditor; Council receives reports regularly from the Finance Department; the City Treasurer or the City Auditor do not submit regular reports; there is no process for the two positions to be answerable and transparent to the community as is.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated reasonable minds can differ; suggested moving forward without taking a vote.
(26- ) Ordinance No. 3408, “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.” Finally passed; and
(*26- A) Resolution No. 16441, “Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the Submission of a Measure to Approve the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds to Finance Municipal Improvements, Establishing the Policies and Procedures for Such an Election, Requesting that the County of Alameda Conduct Such an Election, and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure.” Adopted.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved final passage of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested herself and Councilmember Boller author the argument in favor and the rebuttal.
Vice Mayor Pryor moved approval of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Boller authoring the argument in favor and any rebuttal to the opposition, if any.
Councilmember Boller seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Boller, Jensen, Pryor and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(26- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 8-8.10 (No Parking in Bicycle Lanes) to Article 8-8 (General Parking Regulations) of Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and Alternative Transportation Modes), to Prohibit the Parking of a Vehicle in Any Designated Class II, Class III, or Class IV Bicycle Lane within the City of Alameda. Introduced; and
(*26- A) Resolution No. 16442, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Master Fee Schedule to Add Fine Amounts for New Parking Violations.” Adopted.
The Parking Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are only six miles of cycle tracks on the island, to which the Parking Manager responded the Transportation team pulled the data within the last two months.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated this is an important item as 40% of school children get to school by walking or biking; the City would like to ensure people do not have to navigate around a car parked in the bike lane; inquired about businesses on Park Street needing deliveries.
The Parking Manager responded there are curbside loading zones throughout the commercial businesses for such vehicles.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the zones are located and how they avoid being in a bike lane.
The Parking Manager responded throughout the commercial corridors.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested more detail; inquired whether signage is posted allowing trucks during certain hours; stated it is not easy to run a business with costs escalating and everyone worrying about affordability; the City does not want to hamper businesses; inquired whether the delivery trucks are being encouraged to park in the loading zones.
The Public Works Director responded staff can share the striping plans with Council from about four years ago; stated staff surveyed the commercial corridor to get an understanding of where the loading zones needed to be placed; while the zones do exist, businesses can reach out to staff and have zones reviewed; staff looks at commercial corridors holistically; if additional zones are needed, staff is always open to take a look.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are commercial parking zones on Park Street that are not in a bike lane; inquired whether they are on side streets and how it currently works.
The Public Works Director responded if a curb is painted yellow, it allows a delivery truck to be immediately adjacent to the curb; stated vehicles traverse the bike lane, but do not stop in it.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted many food delivery drivers park where they should not.
Councilmember Jensen inquired how the amount of the workaround fines differ from what will be implemented with the adoption of the ordinance.
The Parking Manager responded the current fine for double parking is $79; stated the fine amount being presented tonight is the same; regarding the loading zones, there are curbside commercial loading zones along Park Street and some side streets also have commercial loading zones.
Councilmember Daysog stated the presentation mentions the State prohibits parking in Class 1 bike lanes only; inquired why there are no similar State prohibitions for Class 2, 3, or 4; inquired if State legislators are working on it and if Council and staff could make a recommendation to the State.
The Parking Manager responded that he cannot speak on behalf of the State; stated Vehicle Code Section 21211 prohibits parking only in Class 1; work is being done with legislators to include Classes 2, 3, and 4; the issue is on the radar of many municipalities and agencies across the State.
Expressed support for staff’s recommendation; stated BikeWalk Alameda will continue to work with Bike East Bay, CalBike, and the City’s state lobbyist to pursue a technical amendment to the Vehicle Code that would remove the ambiguity that is creating confusion: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.
Councilmember Jensen moved introduction of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Pryor seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
City Manager Communications
(26- ) The City Manager stated it is great to be back in Alameda; expressed appreciation for the City Attorney; announced the outdoor movie series, the Downtown Alameda Business Association Art and Wine Fair, and the Downtown Alameda Farmer’s Market every Thursday on Alameda Avenue from 3 to 7 p.m.
Oral Communications, Non-Agenda
None.
Council Referrals
None.
Council Communications
(26- ) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
The City Clerk noted Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft has served as the delegate and Vice Mayor Pryor has served as the alternate and both are planning on attending the conference.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft serving as the delegate and Vice Mayor Pryor serving as the alternate.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(26- ) Councilmember Daysog reminded folks about the August Council recess.
(26- ) Councilmember Boller expressed his appreciation for the City Attorney.
(26- ) Vice Mayor Pryor expressed her appreciation for the City Attorney.
(26- ) Councilmember Jensen expressed her appreciation for the City Attorney; discussed what was accomplished and what was differed tonight; stated Council has placed an infrastructure bond measure and two Charter amendments on the November ballot; although she voted yes, she is disappointed by the lack of transparency and the limited public outreach that was done to inform Alameda voters and residents about these important changes; she will continue to push for transparency and accountability and is optimistic the City Manager will too.
(26- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the public was extensively informed via a series of mailers and social media; consultants have said they have never seen a City with such robust response to the outreach; expressed her appreciation for the City Attorney; announced that she attended the Northern California Power Agency event at the Faculty Club in Berkeley, a Key Club event at Crab Cove, the Relay for Life event, the League of California Cities Board of Directors meeting at Redondo Beach, a Change of Command Ceremony at the Coast Guard Sector - San Francisco in Treasure Island, and Alameda County Mayor’s Conference in Pleasanton.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.