Speaker 6: The council has actually adopted policies around the 85% parking parking occupancy goal as a way of managing that parking pricing it so that there's always a few spaces available. We need to do it to manage our traffic. Number one issue in Alameda, traffic congestion. How do we manage our flow of traffic in and around the city? Parking management is a key tool in that multipronged strategy of of dealing with our traffic congestion. Obviously, reducing greenhouse gases imperative managing parking is important for safety and we've got to keep cars from parking in front of fire hydrants. We need to make sure they're not double parking. We need to make sure they're not blocking visibility at intersections. If we're not able to manage that, we're going to have all sorts of safety issues. Obviously, it's a quality of life issue. We need to manage our parking supply on streets so we can street sweep the streets. We have a residential parking permit program at Harbor Bay around the ferry terminal. This is probably something we're going to start seeing more and more of. It's also necessary to support transit. You know, the council has been vocal about the need to sort of get a handle on the parking supply and the parking management around our growing number of ferry terminals. The growth of ferry ridership is a great thing in Alameda, but it does start to create some new issues for us. And parking management at the ferry terminals has is a growing area for us and around our transit corridors. As transit becomes more and more a necessity for Alameda residents as they try to get around the region, of course, all of these great things that we want to do to manage requires enforcement. We use pricing to manage parking well. If we're not going to enforce that, then people stop paying the meters. So we need to and we need pricing requires enforcement. We put time limits, the residential parking permit or suites street sweeping. These are examples of where we say, hey, you can park here, but not during these times or not for this amount of time. We have to be able to effectively enforce that. Once people get the sense that we're not we don't enforce well, then they don't comply. It starts to break down, obviously low. Zones, disability parking requirements. These are all these areas we need to be able to effectively enforce these programs and these requirements for us to be successful citywide. So we have to have a bit of a problem here in Alameda. Our enforcement is not working effectively. It really comes down to a fairly simple problem, more complicated to fix. And this is where we need your help. The way our enforcement program is set up today, it's set up around eight part time positions. These are part time no benefitted positions and they are supervised by a portion of a full time sergeant. This time we are currently only able to keep three of those positions filled. So we have less than 50% of the budgeted positions filled and operating. And so as as a result, we're not doing a great job enforcing our citywide parking problem. So that's the current problem that we're we want to try to fix. And then we're also looking ahead. We are right on the cusp of taking our sort of struggling parking management program, which is really focused around Park Street and Webster Street. I mean, we obviously do citywide for abandoned vehicles and stuff, but a lot of the enforcement is focused around parking and Webster Street, and we are looking forward into the very near future of expanding that program significantly into Alameda Point with the redevelopment of Alameda Point, our parking supply that we're going to need to manage and is going to triple. So what we are what we're really trying to do is prepare for the future here and the very near future. We want to also start charging at the ferry terminals, managing that parking supply, obviously, you know, putting in a parking charge at a ferry terminal. That's the easy part. But if you're not going to enforce right around, especially at Alameda Point, where we have acres and acres of concrete and asphalt, if we're not prepared to enforce that area around it, the charging for the ferry terminals is not going to be successful. So we've really been looking at this problem about our current situation and how do we prepare to expand into the future. I'm not going to hand it over to Liz, who is going to lay out our sort of four options or roads that we might travel down. And all we're looking for from you tonight is your sense of which of these roads we should or approaches we should pursue.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Andrew. Madam Mayor and members of the City Council in was accord public works coordinator. As Andrew is outlined for you, we're looking for some direction. And so to that end, we have four options for your consideration. I'm going to walk you through those four options and highlight for you what I think of as the programmatic pros and cons. And then my last site will be a high level comparison cost comparison slide for us to take a look at. So option number one is really a look at the existing program, as you've heard from Andrew. It's a program and it's a little bit in a lot a bit in a state of trouble. And we could certainly before we talk about the ways that we expand the program, talk about keeping the program as it exists. Now, you've heard from Andrew why that's problematic from the staffing side. There are some pros here in that it's pretty straightforward and it doesn't come with additional costs or much more managerial responsibility. But that's really where we see the end of that that pros list. And we shift quickly over into the cons in that we're really taking a struggling program and spreading it thinner. It's not just about continuing the struggling program for our existing enforcement needs or parking supply, but as additional needs come online, we start to see that program essentially get more reactive and spread thinner and thinner. And to Andrew's point about what we're serving right now, it's really primarily pulling those limited resources away from the downtown corridors in the business community. So we from a traffic and parking management perspective, we expect that this will prevent us from our goals and it really prohibits us from managing and charging for parking in the future. Option number two takes a look at expanding the existing program by budgeting for more part time positions as the parking enforcement needs increase. The main benefit here is that if we could get this to work, it would be relatively low cost. However, based on our current experience and our current ability to hire the existing budgeted positions, we don't see that we would be able to fill any additional budgeted positions that we would be bringing into the program. So for this option, we're expecting that we would face the same challenges as option number one. And then, of course, as we start looking at adding. Sources, whether they be part time, full time or otherwise. There are increased managerial and supply commitments that come along with that. So then we move to option number three, which proposes converting the program to full time employees, which is an approach that other agencies certainly take. Like option number two, this increases the need for supplies and management, although we would recommend adding in some non-core and supervisory positions, which is a structure that we see in other California cities, Monterrey and San Francisco, for example. And given our ability to retain full time staff, this option is expected to be successful and allow us to meet our goals. So not only do we see other agencies that do this, work this way, have success in hiring and retaining their full time staff. We have our own in-house example in that the one existing full time position in the police department for abandoned vehicles. We have had great success in hiring and retaining into that position. On the flip side, this does become the most expensive option in both in here in the long term, and it also is a slower option in that it's going to take us some time to establish these positions and hire, recruit and hire into those positions. So that means we might not be ready for our increased enforcement needs or what we're thinking of as day one at Alameda Point. And then our final option that we have here is to be able to look at using contract forces for parking enforcement, which is another common approach that we see. This option is more cost effective in that it's less of a long term commitment. And given how the vendors are specialized and flexible in the work that they're executing for their partner agencies. It's also commonly a much faster solution to implement. Gives us that better chance of being able to be ready for that day one at Alameda Point. And we also know that it's proven we've seen many agencies in California go this route and have some good long term success in this program. However, it still does require a management commitment from the city oversight of that contract, and the program still would sit with the city everything from customer service to use of vehicles and all that good stuff. And while it is proven for other cities, it is a new approach for the city of Alameda. So we would be in the position of figuring that out. And so our final slide that I have for you is just a really high level cost comparison. There are a couple of things I want to note about this slide. So you're looking at our projections for total future enforcement needs or what we're thinking of as full build out of Alameda Point. This is an annual cost comparison and these costs are in today's dollars and they don't include any of those cost of living inflators or the long term obligations that we might face, specifically under option three of the the full time staffing option. The projections that we've made are based on our existing enforcement program, our hours of enforcement. So we've sort of taken a look at the incoming parking supply and applied those parameters to to those new spaces coming online. And these it's important to note that these costs are just for parking enforcement. It does not include the meter maintenance and collections program. And then as you read the staff report, you know, we understand this is a high level look. We are asking for direction and we are prepared to come back with detailed, more detailed budgets and projections. This is just to give you a sense of what the costs look like for the various options. And as we talked a little bit about in the option three slide, when we project this way, even without those cost of living inflators, option three does present itself as the most costly item. So with that, I will hand it back over to Andrew for the final slide.
Speaker 6: So as we said earlier, we realize this is a major under. This is a major undertaking. We're trying to do a number of things, fix existing problems and prepare for the future, the really the tripling of the size of the program. It's obviously a very important issue. It covers it sort of touches all sorts of policy objectives the council's already established. We also just want to reinforce this this comment tonight. You know, this is an ongoing process. This is not your final just meeting on this issue. We are we know we've laid out quite an array of options here. We're trying to get a sense in the council, like, where are what are you thinking? Which of these options would you like us to pursue? Is there one in particular that you think is the most fruitful? Obviously, whichever one we go, we'll be back. And with future decisions that need your input. We want to do this in partnership with the council and it's going to take time and resources. So we want to make sure we're doing it right. We want to make sure we're doing it sort of in in a direction that you are comfortable with. So with that, we're really just looking for that first set of directions from you. So we're available to answer any questions. We have some partners here from the police department, obviously.
Speaker 0: But they're collaborating.
Speaker 6: On an army of joint base reuses here as well. So it's all yours.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So before we take our public speakers, do we have any clarifying questions from the city council? Councilman Brody. Don't go away. Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Was for you. QUESTION It was it was a little unclear to me in this staff report. So it looks like we're having decreasing revenue from this because of the shortage. So do you have an estimate on. Well, obviously, option one is the same, but on, you know, two and three on where our revenue would increase.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Let me ask Liz to address the revenue question.
Speaker 2: So if we could effectively even if we could effectively hire those part time staffers, we would we would project that with that consistent, steady, complete enforcement picture, we would see the revenue targets that we're supposed to be realizing today. Right. So our parking meter rate revenue is really what we're looking at here. And we've seen that over the years decline. And we've set targets that are a little bit more realistic to what the actual revenues are, but with the proper enforcement and expecting what we would think of as a fairly conservative compliance rate of 75%, we would expect that revenue to stabilize and meet our more true projections of roughly 2 million annually.
Speaker 5: Okay. But then there was a 5 to $8 million number in the staff report.
Speaker 2: So that's looking out at the at the addition of all this future parking supply. A couple of key things to note in that projection. It's at existing rates for existing time limits, not accounting for anything more advanced in parking management like dynamic pricing. But if we were to just apply the model that we have now to all of these new spaces coming online, you know, $1.50 an hour, 9 to 6 at the meter, and we were enforcing that for 75% compliance. We'd get somewhere in that 5 to 8 range.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: May I just. Would you mind if I just added one sort of additional point to this?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Sorry for the non numbers guy. The way I've been looking at this and thinking about this is we need to have a parking program that pays for itself. Our revenues have to cover our expenses. What I've been sort of learning from Liz and our consultants who've been looking at this is we think we can cover our costs in any of these options, and we have to we can't be sitting forward working on an option that requires a general plan, a general fund subsidy every year just to keep our enforcement. The issue is, are we going to just cover our costs or is our is our parking program going to be something that generates revenue, that generates a source of, you know, not through tickets, but through parking charges? It's going to generate revenue that then can be used for your larger transportation program if you want to fund shuttles, if you want to fund additional transportation management programs. Is the parking fund going to be something that's going to help us with that? Or is our basically the cost to enforce going to be the that essentially use that money and the vast majority of it? So that's one of the things that we've been thinking about just from a policy objective. But at minimum, we need to cover our costs and we think we can do it in any of these three options. Option three obviously is. The one that's the tightest.
Speaker 0: Any more clarifying questions? Councilmember Day So.
Speaker 4: About option three. So there's these three asterisks that are there that says options. Three estimates does not include long term pension or OPEB liabilities. So if you included those numbers in the current level and the full build out, what would what the numbers look like if you had to like, you know.
Speaker 2: So we were asked specifically by our finance director and our entire director to not engage in that type of projection, to try to stay out of that area where our experts are typically looking at the cost of benefits out into the future, 20, 30 years. So we could certainly take some direction and go back and work on that and bring back some estimates from that perspective. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And the city manager? Mr. Levy. No. Yeah. Now Lucky any time you can. Now, do our speakers include the officers in the room? Well, gosh, you gentlemen are here. Do you want to say anything?
Speaker 6: No. They were here at our request. You had any questions? From the enforcement perspective. Right.
Speaker 2: All right, guys.
Speaker 0: You got to listen to this. Well, yeah. Okay. So, um, so let's go to public speakers.
Speaker 1: Alan Teague and Denise Champion. You.
Speaker 6: Oh. And, uh, I was really glad to see on the first slide that the goal is reducing traffic injection congestion and greenhouse gas reduction. But then when I see option one and I see no point in charging for parking at the ferry terminal, I realize that staff has said publicly that charging for pub parking at the ferry would only occur after we have effective mass transit to the terminal. Has this changed? The goal should be reducing single occupancy trips to and from the ferry. The carpool parking as part of this enforcement could be easily fit in. It doesn't have to be perfect. It could be very simple to begin with, just so that we start to realize that parking at the ferry is in many ways a regressive tax. If you're going to charge the baristas that are taking the ferry over, you know, paying that much money is a big chunk out of what they make. So really be careful when we're talking about this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Denise Trapani.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I know imposing some additional costs on drivers will be burdensome to a lot of people. I have a car. I get it. But I'm going to also say something that's probably pretty unpopular and that's that we need to stop subsidizing driving. You guys approved the car. The Climate Action and Resiliency Plan tonight. And thank you for doing that. And you guys have declared a climate emergency. But at the same time, I don't know if it was shown in the staff report, but it wasn't mentioned today that word. I don't think we are currently covering our costs, which means that we are subsidizing driving right now and we need to stop doing that. You you're going to get the behaviors that you incent. And so I think we need to stop internalizing some of the costs around driving and absorbing that in our general fund, especially right now when we're asking homeowners to pay for climate mitigation with the storm water pump improvements and the potential additional taxes associated with that. So we're kind of like subsidizing driving, which is 40% of our greenhouse gases, but at the same time asking people to pay for climate mitigation. So I think we just need to get our priorities aligned with our finances and please do something. I like option four because it's the one that gets us to additional revenues fastest. Now, I have some issues with outsourcing, but it does get us to our revenues faster. And if we can come back and take a look at potentially making those employees later on, that seems like a good a good compromise. But please do provide safe direction to take some action on this as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And that was all of our public speakers. Okay, so let's have council discussion. We'll start at the side of the dais. Vice Mayor Knox Way.
Speaker 3: Great. So I'll try to be very short, but thank you. I think it's very exciting. I think we have been talking for near a decade about the importance of parking parking policy in the way that it drives or not intended the the transportation system that we have in our system city. I think the last speaker hit on the way I'm thinking about this while I think ultimately we need to move to option three, that's just how we need to do it. I think that option four with a and I would think of it as like a two year contract with a one year possible extension and some sort of check in study that gives us that would align us with our two year budget in three years and allow us to put in place all the hiring we needed to so that we can make a transition at the beginning of that fiscal year to in-house staffing. Once we know how this is working, I think they're going to be a lot of kinks to work out, and I don't think we have a full year to get to a place where we've hired this options one into. You know, we've already heard from our police chief about just hiring officers and the problems we're having that the part time thing is is it's not just in Alameda issue, it's an issue everywhere. And why we would just keep bashing our head against that wall, I don't know. I would want to make sure that if we move forward with option for that we had some sort of I know we have a city prevailing wage and whatever else requirements but that there be some sort of whether it's prevailing wage or labor requirements so that we do it while we are outsourcing, we are at least outsourcing to people who are working well with their employees. So but I would entertain a motion to support option for with those caveats.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 4: I like option two.
Speaker 0: The end. Okay. Short and sweet. Can you top.
Speaker 2: That your take?
Speaker 5: I don't know about that. Um, I mean, my preference. I mean, I could support option two if the council was leaning towards option two, but my preference would be option three. Uh, I think it's clear from the staff report and I think Denise talked about it and what we're trying to do there, free parking provides a powerful incentive to drive. So that's what it says. The parking. When parking is priced right and enforced for compliance, people are more likely to consider other modes of travel travel. So I think that that kind of undermines this for me. Option four I don't believe in outsourcing public jobs whatsoever, so that is a nonstarter for me. And if anyone else brings back another proposal to outsource public jobs, it's going to be a nonstarter to me. So just heads up on that one. So I would support option three, knowing that ultimately it would, as the staff mentioned, get get our revenue to a point where it not only covers the cost, but, you know, it actually a parking is a revenue generator and hopefully a behavior changing incentivize visor if there is such a word, such a combination. Okay.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember Days, I guess, decided that 20 seconds wasn't enough. Okay.
Speaker 4: Just to elaborate, the reason why I like part time police assistance, um, perspective of the, of the hire of chief of police notwithstanding. And with all due respect, you know, we see the part time police assistance, you know, who are out there collecting the parking meters and all that kind of stuff. So it's, you know, they're part of our our local fabric. And you know, oftentimes when you do things through contract, sometimes, you know, that might be the lowest number, but there might be some, you know, some some service quality issues. So I don't know. That's why I like option two. You know, I you know, I see these people all the time signing.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I favor starting excuse me, starting with option four, because this is a situation that needs to be addressed and I think it gives us the opportunity. We can determine the length of the contract, we can revisit it, we can determine to move toward the full time model. But again, I also feel that we can get a handle on the problem and we do have a problem. And part of it is the climate implications when people are just circling the block and driving around looking for a parking space in our downtown business districts, it's tough on our merchants because people, if, you know, parking is not enforced and people leave their vehicles on the street, then others can't get in to support these businesses. And also, again, I don't think I can say it often enough, but if you listen to the news, you have to believe we're moving toward some economic downturn in our economy. And so we could get a handle on this situation, start addressing it, start increasing our parking revenue with option four, and then if all goes well, we can work toward converting those contract employees to a full time model. But looking at and I understand this is a full bill that enforcement costs, but nonetheless option three and mind you, because finance didn't want us to consider the full cost, it is more than two and a half million dollars at full buildout. And so I just think as policymakers and those of us who realize that there's just a lot of things that our public dollars have to have to cover, I think that it's prudent to start something with something that has proven effective in 23 other California cities that are using it. And I think it could be a fairly immediate way to start addressing the problem here in Alameda. So you may staff question from the vice mayor. Who do you would you agree?
Speaker 3: I think it might be the city manager.
Speaker 0: Will get you.
Speaker 3: When it says option option three estimates didn't include long term pension and OPEB liabilities. My understanding is we also have a city policy that says when we're bringing forth the cost estimates from public safety. Positions that they should include the current OPEB and long term costs. So are the costs that we're looking at here, including the current ones. And what we're not talking about is future potential changes because we haven't got those. Not sure if they include the current.
Speaker 0: Issue to be close to the microphone, please.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure if they do or do not include the current PERS or not.
Speaker 2: When we look at just the numbers for current today, yes, it does include our our actual total costs today. What we were asked to do is, is.
Speaker 3: Try to probably.
Speaker 2: Try to guess what those.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So if you look at that way so we finance would probably give the advice they gave is because the way PERS has changed the structure, they're trying to predict future costs by the way their peers are getting charged to us on liability. So that might be why they said don't add in other costs. That could be why they did. I wasn't involved in that conversation, but that might be a part of it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 5: I mean, just a couple quick thoughts. I mean, if the economy does downturn, you know, I imagine there'll be more people wanting to be part time employees. So that could be an attractive option in some of the recruiting challenges would be gone. But a lot of times when you have these these agreements, I think they have like anti reading provisions that you can't go and take people from from that those companies because they have a business model too and employees they want to maintain and retain. And, you know, if every city that's hired starts poaching them, you know, then it's a problem for them. And from what I remember in Oakland, you know, there's just a lot of constituents there that are not happy with the current system which is outsourced. So, you know, I'd just be afraid we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face by outsourcing.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 4: Two quick points. You know, everyone knows I live near Webster Street. I live near Webb Street. And I've done so for going ten years now. Over the ten years, I've gotten at least ten parking tickets at least. Rightfully so, though, because, you know, I mean, I was, you know, parking in the yard, you know, in the parking lot over there.
Speaker 10: So it is my experience.
Speaker 4: That that our part time, um, parking attendant people. Yeah, they're quite efficient. Granted, I believe that there was this one guy who is now not not part of the hype who is really gung ho. This was like five years ago. But, um, but, you know, I kind of see the option to to me, it works. I know it firsthand. Um. The other thing to you. The second point is, you know, if you do the outsourcing, the 1.475 is a cost to to us that we would that we would spend. But you have to remember, that is completely possible that the private vendor might go gangbusters in terms of like ticketing everybody and, you know, pissing off, you know, the community because, you know, they not only want to recoup their 1.75, but, you know, they might want to get even more. They might. So, you know, beware.
Speaker 2: Of of.
Speaker 4: Outsourcing.
Speaker 0: Um, so if I understand correctly, you've gotten ten parking tickets in ten years, so you think the system must be working? That's one of you two. Yeah, whatever. All right. Well, and I just. I do take to heart Mr. Pony's comment. She's a very strong bicycle and pedestrian advocate that we we want to think about what message we're sending if we just, you know, make it easier for people to drive. I would like people to make that choice that sometimes you can just walk up to Park Street or Webster or take your bike. You don't need to take the the the car and people get to the ferry terminal a lot of different ways. But you're right, there's still a there's still parking challenges there. So I would say that I'm not sure we have a consensus opinion from if you tried to graph that one. I'm I think we're we're all probably one of the different of the four. But I mean, I think that's that's the input. Can you. City Manager. Yes, Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 3: I think Councilmember De Saag said something that struck a chord because I've dealt with a lot of parking enforcement.
Speaker 4: And I think under any of.
Speaker 3: These models, we are, except for maybe the first one under model two through four, you will be seeing a lot more enforcement and you will be seeing some of the impacts he's discussing. And so.
Speaker 6: You will see an increase.
Speaker 3: Or an uptick in complaints coming into each of your email boxes under any of these approaches because. All of them are based on dramatically increasing our tickets. So that is increased enforcement that will be hitting the residents because mostly that's who's who's parking is residents. And so you just need to understand that. And I think once we start doing it all the point and all that, those things will start occurring. So as part of the modeling, I would recommend that we take that into account. Have in my past have done a lot of parking analysis. And so there's ways you try to move the parking, there's ways you try to deal with it, but you just need to be aware that parking is a very sensitive issue. I agree that if your policy position is to move to other modes of transportation, that's an effective way of doing it. But you just need to be aware this will create strategies which will create some more dynamics in the community.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess I need to I feel compelled to reflect that. What we heard with option one is we already have eight positions that are part time and we can only fill three of them. So the idea that we're going to expand to 21 part time and somehow magically get 21 people when we can't fill eight feels a little magical thinking. And I think it's basically do nothing. Just pretend we're doing something which, which is option two. I, I feel that hopefully tonight we can come away with some we got to do option three or option four. We have just passed a climate action plan that requires us to start doing this work. We have adopted Alameda Point transportation plans and an active transportation plan and all sorts of plans that are based on achieving the goals that our citizens tell us, our residents tell us are the most important things that they need to do. Councilmember de sucks ten parking tickets in ten years notwithstanding, I can tell you that all you have to do is talk to the businesses on on Park Street and they will tell you that they tell the people parking in the store. They don't have to worry about paying at the meter because nobody write tickets. Right? When people come in and say, I forgot to pay the meter, they just say, Don't worry about it. Nobody ever writes a ticket here.
Speaker 5: So I always pay the meter.
Speaker 3: Pardon? I always I mean, as as do I. But so I it's a pretty well-known fact that that while we do have three people, they are not very they are not able to do the coverage that we would even hope that the eight people were doing. So I guess my question is. Councilmember Odie. Is there? Would there be in any world. A two year somewhat pilot thing with contract language or direction or whatever else that it's a two and only. And that leads us to a place where we can have our option three full time model.
Speaker 5: I mean, what was your what was your what was your phrase was not wishful thinking fantasy. What was it?
Speaker 3: Well, wish for the magic, magical thinking.
Speaker 5: I think it's magical thinking that to think that when you outsource jobs, they're going to come back to the place where you outsource them. I mean, no offense.
Speaker 3: I don't think they're coming back from anywhere. We haven't outsourced something that exists. So I think that we can make it a let.
Speaker 5: Me come back in house. And I just to me, I have a visceral reaction to outsourcing public jobs to the private sector where there's just a race to the bottom.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 5: Can you do it in option two three hybrid where you have some part time and some full time? I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 0: I want to ask a question of council member in following along the vice mayor's train of thought you you worry about a race to the bottom but we would be writing this contract. So is it not possible to put language in that would protect those interests that are certainly valid? And as we sit here the day after Labor Day, we should be concerned with and but to also look at the reality of the situation.
Speaker 5: To me, it's a value. It's values. I just was at a rally yesterday because Kaiser wants to outsource their janitors and they want to outsource their gardeners. And, you know, that's that's just to me, it's it's it's just a non-issue. It's a nonstarter. And it will always be a nonstarter.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you. So you get three votes.
Speaker 5: That's your problem. That's your business. But, you know, it's well, one of them is not going to be for me.
Speaker 0: But but, Mike, okay. If I mean, if it's just a blanket response that you would never consider it.
Speaker 5: It's a it's a value judgment. It's it's an issue of values.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: And I have them when in this particular instance.
Speaker 0: Understood. Okay. What I would say is that in a four person panel here, we we may have a plurality. We're not going to have a majority. I think the vice mayor and I are fairly aligned with. I see that we have a problem. I think it needs to be addressed. I think we can keep our values intact. But I would go with them as sort of hybrid option for leading to option three model, because I think that's most effective at addressing the the issues that we've talked about.
Speaker 6: With.
Speaker 0: Climate change and traffic.
Speaker 5: I think our charter requires three votes for any action. So it's not a plurality.
Speaker 0: It's where I believe we're just giving direction. I don't think.
Speaker 2: We're.
Speaker 0: Voting.
Speaker 5: But then I'll I'll go outside and option two then then we have a two, two tie.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Look, at the end of the day, giving direction to go forward with some sort of hybrid contract model isn't going to do us any good because at the end of the day, the contract is going to have to be approved by three votes. And if we don't have three votes to even move forward to examine it, let's not spend the time to do that.
Speaker 0: Why don't we hear from the city manager first?
Speaker 3: So I don't know if this will help. I did hear two questions in there that I at least add perspective to one. One is we could look at the combination of option two and three and see if we can do something with that. You ask the question, I think that could be a solution we had. The other is on the contract model. I think it's premised on outside contracting. But what if the contracting was with another public agency that had public employees? That would be a question. Would that make a difference, in your opinion? Because I'm a big on trying to partner with other cities, counties and seeing if there's ways that you can create more efficiencies by by working with other governmental entities, too.
Speaker 5: Interesting. I.
Speaker 3: I mean, I just want to be clear that from my from my point of interest, my point of interest is getting to option three. I'm worried about the fact that even if we were to choose option three, we're going to be 18 months before this thing is in place. And we're going to have a ferry that is open and we're gonna have a parking lot parking lots that are not being enforced. And we are not going to have met the goal, the transportation goals that we set out to me. Option four as an option for with a shift to option three and after year two is is the way to do that. And I feel like we can provide the protections. I, I you will not I will not be here making this case to take jobs that exist and move them to out move it, moving them out . But I do think that there and we do it with shuttles currently as a city, we do it with paving contracts, we do it with all sorts of contracts where we work with private companies that provide public services. So I respect your where your values sit. I just want to say that I think it's possible to have. Equally worthy values and just see this from a different position. I just want to make sure that we get to a place where we're actually doing the work that we said was important.
Speaker 0: Councilmember So did you think.
Speaker 3: That's that's fine. And since we are at a plurality, I just going to say we can also table this conversation until Councilmember Vela comes back and see if we can find three votes there, by which I don't necessarily mean option for councilmember.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 4: You know, one concern that I do have of option three is I have to believe that you are going to have to translate that 2.7, $2.8 million into some kind of average traffic ticket. And so that ticket might be a little much a bit of a sticker shock. And especially if we do program in the, you know, the long term liabilities, you know, I'm still stuck on option two. I don't know. I mean, I think part of the thing is, you know, we just have to tell the chief of police, you know, find the find the staff people. And if he can't, then maybe we need to hear the case. Why he can't or we need to hear the case of the strategy that that could get us to the number of part time police assistance that we might need in traffic enforcement. I don't know. I think that's what that's the missing piece here. And instead of just saying, well, you know, we couldn't do it. And so I still get three, you know, trucks.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Hi. So I am getting really close to tabling this item. Have you had a chance to even listen in? Okay, so, I mean, city manager. Mr. Levitt, you wanted to say something?
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 3: Well, I had two, two additional options. One is either you could see if you could see if council member Val has a has input that could create a majority. Or the second is maybe tabling this and letting us go back. We've heard all the discussion. We understand I understand all the different values are going in this. Maybe give me a chance to go back, look at it, and maybe bring a solution that meets hopefully all of your values and brings back a solution that maybe is workable for all all five council members.
Speaker 0: Well, I think that's ambitious, but Councilmember Vela is back. So would you like to share your views?
Speaker 3: I think or going to try to summarize where I think we are.
Speaker 7: Like there's a question.
Speaker 0: I mean, whatever you do, let's talk into the microphone. So everyone.
Speaker 7: There's a question on option four, but as a pilot.
Speaker 3: So I think where we are and I will look to council member Ody to confirm that I am accurately reflecting this in our discussion. Councilmember de Saga is very supportive of option to write. Councilmember Ody has expressed his strong concerns about the contract model and has said he can't. There is no situation in which he can support the contract. COUNCILMEMBER I'm sorry, Mayor, as the Ashcraft and I have suggested that our goal is to get to option three, but that we could find a pilot with a commitment to move to option three model that provided some sort of union requirements and whatever it is, prevailing wage , etc. with a time limited contract with an expectation that staff would start the now before the contract ended would actually have the full time. Process in place so that we can start up. And I think the question is where are where where do you think you fit in that spectrum?
Speaker 7: And I share Councilmember Otis concerns about contracting out. I'm I'm not a supporter of outsourcing work, especially this type of work where we've had and we know that there are issues where at least I've had experience in other jurisdictions in my day job, where contracting out this type of work has resulted in kind of sloppy work being done and issues occurring where there have been complaints and then kind of this circular process of who's actually in charge. I do recognize that we have kind of a time pressing issue now. So I wouldn't necessarily support option for as a pilot. It seems like what's being proposed is a stopgap measure that would allow for staff time to negotiate with the bargaining units involved to create some sort of full time model. And. Is that something in my understanding that may are you?
Speaker 0: Well, I guess we could call it whatever we want to get the vote we need. But I one of the things if you were able to follow well and it was in the staff report too is there's there's the time it takes to ramp up to filling those positions that are needed. So stopgap. I mean, how long is a stopgap and.
Speaker 7: I, I think, um, and I understand the amount of time that it takes to ramp up. I would like to, if, if this is something that we were considering because I do think that there's the public safety element of it, um, that is discussed and touched upon in the staff model. Um, I think to me the middle ground is, like I said, I think that the bargaining unit involved needs to have and weigh in on, you know, their concerns and getting the, the unit operational. Um, I guess my question is, if we did a stopgap measure and certainly I would want something in there that very clearly says that this these are, you know, our intent is to get bargaining unit positions. Our intent is to have this be full time. Um, and, and perhaps the people that get hired on, you know, in that temporary period would then be given the opportunity to come on full time. And my.
Speaker 0: Question you discussed that.
Speaker 7: And my question to staff would be, you know, how much time do we really think would be needed to get to the full time model? In the transition period.
Speaker 0: Or would you like to come back with that? Okay. I'm thinking council with this is what I'm thinking. It is almost 1115. We're not going past midnight. That was my vote. And we have a couple more issues yet to hear. Would it be acceptable to you all to to to come back to bring this back? We can because we can just Madam Clerk, remind me, we can just continue this item to the next meeting without having to do. Are you going to need the time to do more staff report to meeting it before the agenda?
Speaker 6: I'd recommend.
Speaker 3: Can they continue to a date specific for maybe continue to October 1st?
Speaker 1: Yeah. There's probably no need to even continue it because we can just read, you know, put it on the next agenda.
Speaker 0: I was just trying to. Well, bearing in mind that they have to have the next agenda out by Thursday of this week.
Speaker 6: But I'd recommend.
Speaker 1: Properties is.
Speaker 2: Over for that.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's that's right. That's not the next meeting you may I.
Speaker 3: Would like to make a motion to ask. And the reason I want the motion is because I want to make sure we have three votes that are even likely to support this moving forward rather than sending staff on a wild goose chase. And then we get back here and find out that nobody likes it, that basically to come back on October 1st with basically the information that Councilmember Vela has asked for, which is a stopgap contract model that is based basically where the length of the contract is based on the time it would take to work with our bargaining units, set up the set up the positions and get them hired. So whether that's 12 months, 18 months, whatever it is, and, you know, in that plan, so that we are basically if we were to pass, I like the term stop gap better than pilot, but something like that. So that we just know that there's some. Yes. I'm just going to request that you move it to October 1st and let us try. Yeah, I've heard all your.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I would.
Speaker 6: My concern is would.
Speaker 0: Be to.
Speaker 2: Take the contract.
Speaker 3: To try to get to. Right. I'm just concerned that we're going to delay and let us come back with two options. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah, that was actually exactly what I was suggesting.
Speaker 6: With.
Speaker 3: I request that we're.
Speaker 0: Giving we're giving staff direction on this to incorporate all of our comments.
Speaker 3: I mean, I've heard all five of your comments. I understand where all of you stand, and I think we can come back with something. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: The public agent. The public agency thing I'd like to hear more about.
Speaker 0: Yep. Okay.
Speaker 5: The public agency.
Speaker 6: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 0: All right. We are coming back to this item on October the first media. October, which is October 1st. Okay. Now we are going to go back to item six.
Speaker 1: D introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Article 17 to Chapter six concerning fair housing and tenant protections prohibiting unlawful tenant harassment, disruption of housing services and housing discrimination, including source of income.
Recommendation to Provide Direction to Increase Parking Enforcement Resources to Support Parking and Transportation Management Goals. (Public Works 224)