Speaker 0: A6g is adoption a resolution approving in adopting the City of Alameda Operating Capital Budget Mid-Cycle Update for fiscal year 2022 2021 and adoption of resolution approving workforce changes and amending the Management and Confidential Employee Association salary effective July 1st and a recommendation to accept report on settlements approved between November 1st to May 1st.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And who is presenting this? Is that you, city manager.
Speaker 3: Bear as the Ashcraft? Yeah. I will be starting the presentation and then turning it over to Jennifer. Tell fairly quickly into the presentation. Okay, so Marisa Ashcraft to City Council, I just wanted to thank you for your time and going through the budget and thank you again for your time in going through the state session back in May, in which this budget comes with your changes that you you implemented back in May when we went through it. This budget contains those pages within it and we can go on to any questions you have. The proposed budget incorporates the input from the budget workshop, as I mentioned in May. The city wide proposed budget is is at 222.8 million. The general fund expenditure budget is reduced from the previously approved in the biannual budget amount of 103.2 to 101.9 million. I will add that we understand the changing dynamics as far as the as far as the COVID 19 and and what it is having on our revenue base . And so we are proposing a 101.9 million. But with that comes some risks. And that is why we're going to be proposing a review at the end of the first quarter. In October of 2020, general fund revenue projections were reduced from 103.2 million to 99.9 million, which means the balance is made up by a to $2 million coming from the city's reserves. By the end of 2020 2021, general fund available fund balance is still projected to be above the 25% per the city council policy, although some revenues are still uncertain. And we'll be reviewing again in October before turning it over to Jennifer Towle. I want to add that since this presentation went up, this presentation went up about ten days ago. I believe since the presentation went up, we've obviously had concerns regarding the police budget. We will be prepared to address and answer any questions on it. Although the presentation itself doesn't address those issues that have been brought up by the public, we're prepared to be able to flex with the council as we talk about it. And we can we can try to address those issues in a variety of ways as the City Council discusses it later tonight. And again, I'll just add that the staff already with the COVID 19 anticipate returning with a budget update in October, and that can be part of the solution with the police concerns that have come forward to the council as far as our changing services potentially happening and how that would impact the police budget as well as other parts of the budget and in the general fund. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jennifer Towle, who will be continuing with the presentation.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 2: Just tell us again, Madam Mayor, and members of the council. I'm Jennifer, total budget manager and the finance department. I'll be discussing our general fund, actually. Sorry. Next slide.
Speaker 3: Although again.
Speaker 2: I'll be discussing our general fund revenue projections and the proposed expenditure updates to year two of the biennial budget previously approved in June 2019. Fiscal Year 2020 221 General fund revenues are projected to come in at approximately $100.1 million at the end of the current fiscal year 2019 to 20. We are currently expecting a decrease next year and fiscal year 2020 221 to $99.9 million. The slow recovery in the following years. Next slide. General fund expenditures are projected to total $98.5 million at the end of the current fiscal year, which would be about $5 million less than the current budget, not including the discretionary pension. OPEB reserve payment the council opted to cancel this year to shore up available reserves going into the COVID related downturn next year, expenditures are proposed to total $101.9 million. Expenditures are expected to grow in the following years due to escalating pension and health benefit costs. Salary increases and expected increases in costs of contractual services and capital outlay.
Speaker 3: Next slide.
Speaker 2: Staff is expecting to end the current fiscal year with a general fund available fund balance of approximately $32.9 million, which represents 33% of annual operating expenditures and is above the operating reserve target of 25%. Next year we are projecting to end the year with a fund balance of about $28.2 million or 28% of operating expenditures in the following years. As expenditure growth is not proactively controlled. Annual deficits are projected to grow and the ending fund balance is projected to fall below the 25% operating reserve target. Next slide. Now I will discuss the city manager's recommended updates to the fiscal year 2020 221 budget. The amount shown on the following slides are in addition to the baseline budget. The baseline budget represents the budget approved by City Council in June 2019 and since revised by budget amendments that are brought to the City Council through the year. Following this presentation, the city manager and department heads are available to answer questions about specific budget changes. Next slide. The city attorney's budget will increase by a total of $475,000 across funds. This is largely comprised of increases in premiums for general liability. It's a small amount of additional operating costs for the recently established prosecution unit. Next slide. The Community Development Department is seeking $145,000 for general fund support for minimum wage enforcement and a rent registry fee waiver for private landlords who accept Section eight vouchers. At this time, staff is budgeting for a $1 million decrease in the approximately $12 million rental income budget for the base for use. Fund staff plans to revisit this revenue estimate in October to offset potential losses in rental income. The Base Resource Fund will reduce its expenditure budgets for contractual services and outside structural repair. Next. Community Development is also proposing new funding for an Alameda Point financial model, a new project for parking management. The Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal, which is expected to open this year. And adjustments to the revenue and expenditure budgets for Alameda Point Community Facilities District 17 Dash one. These changes represent a $1.8 million reduction in the department's budget across 165. In the finance department. The city manager is recommending eliminating the previously approved and unfilled procurement analyst position to offset the cost of a personnel reorganization. The city has been evaluating the organizational structure of the finance department and will bring back any recommended changes as a result of this evaluation later in the fiscal year. With the reduction to the contractual services budget, the department's budget would be decreased by $109,000. Next slide. The Fire Department is proposing to increase their recruitment and training budgets by $41,500. The city needs to increase the ground emergency transport fee and ambulance billing contract by $120,000 as required by the city. The city manager is recommending to continue the community, paramedics and firefighter position for the first six months of fiscal year 2020 221 and to reallocate division chief from a grant funding source to the general fund. County funding for the community paramedics program expired in February 2020, so continuation of this program requires general fund support. The city manager is also recommending to budget for the upgrade of the unfilled civilian fire inspector position to the sworn fire apparatus. Operator Job Class. The cost of this reclassification would be covered by salary savings by waiting until January 2021 to hire the position. The fire department will also reduce its personnel budget by $848,000 to account for vacancies, savings from expected retirements and fiscal year 2020 221. Overall, the department's budget would be reduced by $205,000. Next slide. The Human Resources Department is proposing to add a safety consultant to replace the function previously performed by risk management and to reduce their contractual services budget by about $10,000, or an overall increase of about $50,000 next month. The IT department will reduce the general fund allocation to the replacement fund by $262,000. Staff Report The prior allocations are sufficient to cover the costs of the Enterprise Resource Planning System replacement next year. It will also use previously appropriated funds for the open govt contract alignment. Next slide. The hiring of a previously approved library technician will be delayed until January 2021 for savings of about $45,000. The city manager is also recommending new funding for the link, plus interlibrary loan software and the Japantown Historical Walk project. Overall, the department's budget would increase by $17,000 next leg. For city wide savings. The city manager is recommending a rate holiday in fiscal year 2020 221 for the facility replacement charges that are charged internally to departments and programs citywide. This will result in savings of about $1.2 million, of which about $800,000 will be savings to general fund programs and departments. The rate holiday will be achieved by deferring a facility replacement project originally planned for fiscal year 2020 221 and estimated to cost about $1.3 million. Note that in the budget, this rate holiday shows the savings to each department, but for presentation purposes, I'm only showing it here. The city manager is also recommending reducing the contingency reserve by $105,000 and accounting for nonpublic safety. They can see savings of $400,000 by delaying the hiring of vacant positions. The city manager also recommends adding budget for $297,000 in COVID 19 related expenses. Overall, these non-departmental and miscellaneous changes will reduce the budget by about $1.4 million. Next slide. The Planning, Building and Transportation Department is seeking to reclassify a combination building inspector to senior and to accept and extend three grants, one of which is from the county and two of which are from the state. So the Otis Drive traffic calming projects and updates to the city's general plan. Overall, this will result in a net increase of funding of about $293,000. Next slide. The police department's budget already includes about $1.3 million in vacancies savings as approved by the City Council in June 2019. As part of the biennial budget, the city manager recommends adding a second animal control officer to the police department in January 2021. Since the $1.3 million in savings is already reflected in the baseline budget. The Department. The budget will increase by $50,000. Next slide. The Public Works Department is seeking general fund support for homeless encampments, debris removal and sea level rise planning, capital project, and additional funding for intersection safety improvements. The city manager recommends offsetting these expenses with reductions to the Street Lighting Capital Project, the Master Tree Plan and the Veterans Court Seawall Project. Next slide. Based on the results of a ballot initiative last fall, public works will begin collecting a new stormwater fee this fall that is expected to generate about $2.7 million in revenue. Public Works is also seeking additional expenditure budget $175,000 for mold abatement and $30,000 for parking meter collections and maintenance. The city manager recommends using debt financing for projects to convert streetlight fixtures to lead. The budget. Update also includes a $771,000 payment in lieu of taxes from the sewer fund, which is a clean, clean up item that was left out of the budget last year. Overall, the public works budget would be increased by $136,000 next month. The Recreation and Parks Department is seeking additional general fund support for emergency repairs and water costs to offset the increased costs. The city manager recommends reducing the playground replacement capital project allocation and reducing the general fund transfer to the recreation fund. The city manager also recommends appropriating $289,000 in Alameda Point CFD 17 national funds for new workers, equipment and supplies to maintain two new parks expected to open at Alameda Point in 2021. Following City Council's direction at the May Budget Workshop. The proposed budget also includes transferring $25,000 in previously appropriated funds from the Base Reuse Fund to the Capital Project Fund for Dpu Park Planning. Overall, changes to the Recreation and Parks Department budget total $20,600. Next line. This slide shows the city wide expenditure budget across all funds broken down by department. The baseline budget represents the fiscal year 2020 221 budget previously approved by City Council in June 2019 and revised by the budget amendments brought to the City Council through the year. The changes shown here do not line up with the department totals shown on the earlier slides because as noted earlier, these amounts include savings from the facility replacement rate holiday. The budget proposed for city council approval totals $222.8 million. Next slide. To summarize the proposed workforce changes. The mid-cycle update includes elimination of the procurement analyst, hiring the new library technician and animal control officer positions in January 2021. Adding a gardener and maintenance worker for the new Alameda Point parks in March 2021 and adding a computer service technician element in municipal power or it as a note other than payments that the city receives from AMP. Since budget is not included in the citywide budget, the workforce changes also include reclassification of these four positions. Nancy Bronstein, H.R. director, is available to provide additional information about the workforce changes following this presentation. Next slide. I'll now turn it back to city manager Eric Lovett.
Speaker 3: Mayor says the Ashcroft and City Council, we are turning it back to you for any questions you may have us have of us for the 20, 20, 2021 budget or any comments or discussion you'd like to have further on it.
Speaker 1: I love that. That last photo with the palm trees. Um, counsel, do we have any clarifying questions of either Mr. Levitt and Estelle or we have our h.r. Director, Mr. Bronstein standing by or maybe sitting. Any clarifying questions? Counsel Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 2: My question has to do with the fire department. Does our budget include giving acting pay or are we giving acting pay for the chief positions? That included in this.
Speaker 3: That I can answer.
Speaker 1: That. Mr.. LEVITT Okay.
Speaker 3: That does. So there's an acting chief currently because the other chief is out right now. So with that, it does include acting pay. A portion of acting pay in there? Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: As well as there's sometimes other positions in the fire department that have acting pay also.
Speaker 2: So does it create like a kind of a chain of acting pay?
Speaker 3: Then there can be like there can be a chain. That particular position doesn't create a chain, but there are other positions that had promotions up because of other vacancies. And so when there's vacancies, we do have acting pay in that department like we do other departments, but that's usually absorbed by other savings within the department.
Speaker 2: Do we have a limit on how long somebody can be acting or. I think day is I'll.
Speaker 3: I'll I'll defer to Nancy Brown saying for that.
Speaker 2: So there isn't a limit within our civil civil civil service roles or memorandums of understanding about asking pay limits.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You said there is not.
Speaker 2: It's not.
Speaker 1: It is not. Okay. Thank you. Michelle, originally. Are you finished your questions? Yeah. Okay. And Councilmember Desai, I see your hand up.
Speaker 3: Yes. Great. Two sets of questions. The first question has to do with the recreation and parks. What I remember last year is there was a lot of action. Can you hear me, by the way? Yeah, just. Sorry. There's a lot of action regarding Jackson Park resulting in council wanting to make sure that we had money set aside for playground and other kind of park recreation activity. So when I look on page 21 on recreation and parks and I see that there was going to be a reduction in $250,000 for playground replacement capital allocation. Is that undoing the things that we had, uh, you know, thought one year ago? Because I believe that we had kind of extensive discussions around that. And also, if you can also kind of amplify a little bit more on the $200,000 reduction in the recreation fund. That would be this is right.
Speaker 1: So thank you, Mr. Data, for your question. I think I saw our recreation parks director, Amy Wooldridge, as a participant. So there Ms.. Aldridge. There she is. Black Magic. So what is your muted. So if you want to. And mute yourself. And there she is.
Speaker 2: Hello. Hello. Thank you for the question to address Jackson Park. No. The $250,000 reduction for this upcoming fiscal year 2021 does not affect Jackson Park that was allocated in the current fiscal year 1920. So those funds still remain in that project. And in fact, we just had a fantastic discussion about the play area design at that last week's Recreation Parks Commission meeting. So that that is is moving along quite nicely.
Speaker 3: But is it correct to say that it would affect other parks, though, in terms of what would have been allocated allocated to those parks?
Speaker 2: Yes, it will affect. It means that we won't be doing an additional park this upcoming year. However, Bayport Park, for a number of reasons, was delayed in part because of the COVID. We were ready to do all of the design meetings and we're about to get that back going again. So we'll be taking staff time anyway this next fiscal year to be focusing on getting day for Park. And it could potentially be a while before we can actually have on a park playground. And so we don't want to open a brand new playground with it's too much of a temptation to when I'm on it. So all of those or we were fine with delaying that for just one year.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you for that explanation of a second set of questions, if I can.
Speaker 1: Mayor, please.
Speaker 2: The second set of.
Speaker 3: Questions has to do with the police funding. So typically, I believe we're looking at 88 sworn police officers. I think that's the number that that that we always want to kind of shoot for. But that the reality is, I think we're at.
Speaker 2: 79 or.
Speaker 3: 80, so we're down from the number that we typically want to shoot for. So here's my question. When I see that the that that that we're contemplating a police vacancy savings of $1.3 million for the balance of the 2020 2021. Oh. Well for the fiscal year 2020 2021. Does that mean that we don't is that because we don't imagine in the coming fiscal year. Um, uh. Going from where we are right now, 79 or 80 to 88. And so because we don't imagine filling up the lack of eight officers, that that there's going to be a vacancy savings. I can see it. I can.
Speaker 1: Imagine 11.
Speaker 3: I can answer that. So I'll give two part. So in the proposed budget amendment, you're correct that that assumes a minimum of five vacancies throughout the year, equivalent to five vacancies from that 88 throughout the year. And second, those same five vacancies were also projected in last year or the year were about to end, which we exceeded those vacancies. And but we wanted to make it very transparent. I was concerned that wasn't as transparent as I'd like it to be last year. And so that's why we highlighted it here. So the council is well aware of that. Okay. Let let me ask this quite a quick question, Claire. When you say you want to make it transparent, is.
Speaker 2: That because.
Speaker 3: When we don't recognize the vacancy hit, then we would potentially have passed a budget that's going to throw out a number that said police budget should be something like $36 million. But because we know that there's going to be vacancies in the coming fiscal year. By virtue of this via the transparency, we are now recognizing the fact that that it's not going to be $36 million, it's going to be $36 million -$1.3 million. Is that basically what you're getting at? In general, I would agree with you that member.
Speaker 1: States.
Speaker 3: And general I would agree with you this year, I think is somewhat of an exception. And I won't even go into the latest issue, which I think creates more of an exception to this year. But for instance, we actually have budgeted vacancies in three areas in order to get us to a balanced budget. One is the police. One is fire. So fire has worked with me to create where they can have some vacancies there, which affects the fourth ambulance going into service. And then the third area is in general population or general city general fund positions that are nonpublic safety, that we also have another just under half a million, about 400,000 and savings budget there. And we did this in order to be able to get to a balanced budget and that we would have to create those savings throughout the year. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you all for you, Councilmember. Okay. Any further clarifying questions before we go to public comment?
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 1: Um. Okay. I don't think I'm seeing anybody with your hands up. So, um. Madam Clerk, I suspect we have some public comments to it.
Speaker 0: Yes, and I think we're above seven, so I think we're going to change that to 2 minutes. So there are a number of attendees of any attendees. There's ten of them. If any other attendees would like to comment, and then I think there's 22 to read into the record.
Speaker 1: Okay. So so then, just so everyone knows, under council rules, when we have more than six public speakers instead of 3 minutes per speaker, you have 2 minutes for speaker committees. So quite a bit of time to speak. So and the city clerk will be timing you. So why don't we go to the people who are living in person first, Madam Kirk, and then we'll get to the comments that were submitted to you by email or text or however they came in.
Speaker 0: Great. Okay. Okay. The first one is Lauren Salem.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. And I love being able to see your name on the screen, so I spell it correctly. Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi. So I want to share with you a personal story about a recent interaction my family had with the Alameda Police Department last month. A close family member of mine experienced a mental health problem. She started acting out and the neighbors eventually called 911. Two officers responded, and they were courteous. They were professional. It was really the best case scenario for a police response to a mental health call. But when our neighbor called 911 and this dispatch sent the police, dispatch had no other choice but to send the police. Like most towns and cities, Alameda doesn't have a team of mental health professionals to respond to emergencies. But as we know, not every 911 call is best served by having the police respond. A quick perusal of our most recent police blotter, published by the Alameda Sun, shows that someone was detained by police for.
Speaker 1: Psychiatric evaluation.
Speaker 2: Five days out of seven this week, and some days it was more than one person. Last week there were four days, same the week before. That doesn't even include calls about the unhoused or welfare checks. It is not a crime to be sick, homeless or mentally ill. The police should not be responding to these types of calls. Instead, the police should redirect funding from the APD to create one or more new civilian positions for trained mental health professionals or social workers to respond to noncriminal 911 call. I am aware that the city is facing budget challenges this upcoming year and I suggest starting with the police departments pay for patrol officers is one of the larger line items in the city budget. The police budget is over 36% of the general fund and if my math is correct, about 78% of that goes to salaries and pay for patrol officers. By creating a civilian position, I suggest above and therefore removing the need for.
Speaker 0: That's the time.
Speaker 2: Respond to know.
Speaker 1: Your time is up, Miss Salem. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next, we have Vinny Camarillo.
Speaker 1: Hello, Mr. Camarillo.
Speaker 0: Oh, he does not have the current version of Zoom, so we will hopefully get him to update that and come back to him. We'll go on to Shalom Brun.
Speaker 1: Okay. Hello? Hello? Can you hear me? My friend, we can.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Just want to say good evening to the council and to the community members who are listening to. A local representative of ours recently expressed, and I quote, A budget is more than numbers on a page or in a spreadsheet. It's a reflection of our values. It reveals our priorities. And I believe now more than ever, we must focus on protecting those most in need in order to prevent devastating and permanent harm, unquote. With this in mind, I stand with people power and the ability to use and have 7 billion won. Defund the police. Do not allocate more money towards police in our city budget. Begin to reinvest in our community based alternatives to 911. Such as health care, mental health care, education, housing, jobs, and providing intervention and social workers as community based first responders. Reinvestment Act four above includes removing all law enforcement from schools and reinvesting in all attendant funding in attendance, funding into youth restorative justice programs and community based solutions. There are other points that I know others will be bringing up. What I want to say is that. I ask you not to then to adopt the resolution approving and adopting the City of Alameda Operating and Capital Budget Mid-Cycle update Unless these things are considered taken into account and that is revised to reflect the current state of our community. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr.. And our next speaker is Leanne.
Speaker 0: But that name wasn't right. It was the person. The student?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah, I think for me, yes, I'm.
Speaker 2: Back. So.
Speaker 1: No, no worries. Welcome back.
Speaker 2: My name is Sophia Coffman. I'm a sophomore. Tell me. Hi. This is my first time seeing one of these. I'm sure you can tell.
Speaker 1: Nervous? No, that's great. And not your last. Okay, take it away.
Speaker 2: The current budget means a proposed so under represents the current political discussions, an awakening that we're all reckoning with in our demands to defund the police. We're able to redirect those funds into public education. In my school, programs are being cut left and right. The art and language departments have become total jokes. Our teachers are still so wonderful, so underfunded, despite all the community work that they do. Every teacher I know puts in so much effort. There is no reason for every police car to have two sets of riot gear. Teachers still have to pay for pencil and paper in the classroom. The police are not teachers. Studies have shown that when we invest in public education, communities commit less crimes. Our media, teachers and students deserve so much better. I'm asking you to vote now and postpone this budget because we need much more time to adopt it. Let me remind you, we, the people, pay your tax. And this is the position. This is the position that the youth, the future, overwhelmingly supports. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Kaufmann. Nice to have you.
Speaker 0: Ben Kaleka.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 3: Hi. Um, so I'm a small business owner on Park Street, and I have had good experiences with the police, by the way. I mean, not only what has happened, but the way that it has been handled by the police is is causing great distress. However, we'll talk about more about that tomorrow. But for now, the issue that I brought before about the fact that apparently the police department has already made the decision to not respond to a number of these types of of mental health and other issues that were mentioned before indicates that they have already started to shift the priorities . And therefore, we need to look at what needs to be done to replace that. So adopting a budget right now that reflects the the a number of times that the police have to respond to things that they've now chosen not to respond to, I think is is premature. And I would I would strongly support holding off on adopting this through the budget until we can find out what the police are doing to to change their response policy and and what that means in terms of what we need to do to to replace it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Kaleka.
Speaker 0: Lily Kaczynski.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Hey. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your time. I'm going to briefly read that from the email I'm sure many people send sent you and just add a couple of personal notes as well. So I demand that you reject the current budget resolution and allocate funding in accordance with the following two changes immediately. And once again, echoing people's points of defunding, reallocating from the police specifically 40% and divert savings to caring for underprivileged parts of our community. And that's been mentioned by others in the call. More social work, more professionally trained mental health field, first aid folks, youth programs, community wellness resources and the like. Also, just refer to many articles that have come out in Los Angeles Times and over across the bay with Mayor London breed reallocating beginning to do that and having people in the mental health professional field go out into the streets instead of police people. And just lastly, you know, as I went to go through the livestream and look on Facebook, I see on the city of Alameda Local Government Facebook page, members of the black community who have been murdered, some of them by police department officials, police department members. And I just ask that as. As we want to really earn their faces and what they stand for on the page with a good, hard look at our anti-racist work and our work with the funding of reallocating the police. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Cherri Johanson.
Speaker 2: Well. Oh.
Speaker 1: Hello, Mr. Hansen. Hi. How are you?
Speaker 2: I'm here in. In Council. Um, throughout my career, I have been on lots and lots and lots of budgets.
Speaker 1: Both on one side and the other.
Speaker 2: And for small companies and big companies. Um, and these news cycle, um, revisions to budgets are really important. And as the previous speakers have said, it shines a spotlight on current.
Speaker 1: Events and what's happening.
Speaker 2: Currently. Um, I'm sure the budget proposals that you have in front of you were done to reflect the pandemic and.
Speaker 1: The lowering in.
Speaker 2: Revenues. Um, I think all of the things that have happened recently, of course, are not in this budget and the community is really wanting to reallocate funds from the police department to some sort of a.
Speaker 3: Um.
Speaker 2: Service, community service position and to reduce the policemen that are in the schools. Um.
Speaker 1: She further, he himself.
Speaker 2: Has said that by the end of the year he expects to have 66 officers. So, um, that's quite a lot less than the 88, if that's what we're budgeting for. He also said that he would like to, um, not answer the calls, which we've all heard. And, um. One other thing I don't see, but, um. So I. I don't know if October is going to really satisfy the community if we wait till October. I know this is up to, um, city manager Eric Robert to work with the police department.
Speaker 1: But I do think you should postpone.
Speaker 2: This approval and or only approve the things that are necessary right now and. And not the police budget. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Hanson.
Speaker 0: Susanne. Hi.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 2: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: We can.
Speaker 2: Great. I'm commenting tonight on the police budget. We've heard in recent weeks about the issues of racism and policing across the country and in our own community. City of Alameda Police Data Paints a story of systemic racial inequity. Black individuals in Alameda are five times more likely to be arrested than white and 16 times more likely to be arrested in Asians relative to their population size. We can and must do better. Creating a citizen commission and adopting policies that restrict use of force are a necessary step, but they cannot go far enough. It is the job of government to protect the people, and we have not included sufficient checks on the power of the police. Our police officers are working within a system. The police system was designed to suppress and it is doing exactly what it was designed to do to address racism and inequity in policing and in our society . We must redesign our system of policing to create greater protections and support for our entire community. The system level changes that are needed to address racism in policing require planning to implement. I am requesting that the Council reallocate funding for the police departments 2020 221 Budget Fund, an outside investigation that evaluates the police department's policies, training manuals and responses in order to identify policies and practices that reinforce racism. The study should also define a minimum police staffing level and an approach to developing and staffing a civilian response team. Since many choose to fund the study, I request that be published and shared openly with the community prior to the next budget cycle so we can decide collectively how we move forward. The study would be a first step in defining what the future of the army to police department could look like. And we have an opportunity today to reevaluate how we fund policing and other services in order to build up our community and create greater equity rather than divide us. I thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Jade Agnes.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. She also does not have the current version of Zoom, so we can't okay her. So we'll move on to Leslie Van every and maybe.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: I can.
Speaker 3: Awesome.
Speaker 2: Okay. So thank you, Mayor Council people for your time. And also, thank you. Shalom, Lily, LeAnn, and so many others, you know, for outlining so much information and why we need to focus on defunding the police and looking at other areas that do deserve funding. So the need to hold off on the budget to review and reallocate it is essential.
Speaker 3: One thing that I would like to.
Speaker 2: Highlight here.
Speaker 3: Is a different way to.
Speaker 2: Spend some of.
Speaker 3: That budget. So with.
Speaker 2: COVID 19 still looming and the.
Speaker 3: Possibility of the very much possible reality of.
Speaker 2: Virtual school again means we need to look at how it impacts families of public school age.
Speaker 3: Children.
Speaker 2: So I'd like to break it down into two different issues. One, access to our.
Speaker 3: Schools for mental health resources. We can work with.
Speaker 2: AUC to figure out mental health options for teens, as this time can really impact their sense of self. This program will act as a social safety net.
Speaker 3: So we are continuing to stop these issues before they go out of hand. I know we've done this great two year work.
Speaker 2: Through.
Speaker 3: CDBG, but we need to find.
Speaker 2: A way and plan for it to.
Speaker 3: Build this moving forward.
Speaker 2: So we need to have a conversation.
Speaker 3: About how we build upon this and make it long term.
Speaker 2: The second point I would like to bring up.
Speaker 3: Is after.
Speaker 2: School care programs for families K through eight that can't afford afterschool.
Speaker 3: Care. Is there a.
Speaker 2: Way that we could coordinate with.
Speaker 3: The Parks and Rec who have facilities that could be used for this smaller group of students.
Speaker 2: With family members who cannot look after them?
Speaker 3: This child care would include structured.
Speaker 2: Positive activities and homework.
Speaker 3: Support. So these are just two.
Speaker 2: Of, I'm hoping, many different ways that we'll be able to reallocate those funds in ways that will truly, positively impact.
Speaker 3: Our community. I yield my time. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. In every.
Speaker 0: An expert here, Amy Chu.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Members of the City Council. My name is Amy Chu and I've been a Alameda resident for 20 years. I graduated from Ensign in 2018 and currently attend UC Berkeley. I was a former student representative for the School Board and Internal School Psych Council. So as a student and active resident, I urge you to listen to the demands of the youth activists who have galvanized this community. I ask you to consider the many comments before me to reject the budget resolution, divert funds away from the police department, and reinvest back into community resources. I'm really glad that we decided to highlight Exhibit five of Item 60 and discuss the Fantastic Nine housing public services such as mental health services and direct legal services through director funds and set of priorities. There's a reason why you're hearing the same requests to decrease the police budget. While I understand this is a complex and long term process, it's important to continue the most critical changes that we can make. Do not pass this budget resolution until there's an amendment that financially backs anti-racist policies moving forward. Listen to the youth that you love. Uplift the black voices that you claim to support. I appreciated the discussion of reevaluating Almeida's perception of accountability, which was brought up last Wednesday's town hall. This is a chance for Almeida to innovate, rethink and restructure. As another speaker before me conveyed simple reform measures like eight can't wait. Do not prove to be effective in other cities and seem more like a smokescreen of progress rather than systemic change. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's special meeting, but for today, reject this budget resolution and take action in all capacities, which includes the most fundamental focus of what a city prioritizes to fund. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: De Day. Lewis is next. Oh. And does not have the current version of Zoom. I'm so sorry. Kevin. Lauren.
Speaker 1: And while we're waiting for some of our speakers to return, it shouldn't take long, as I understand, to do that. Quick update to Zoom. So we'll just get you at the back of the queue. Hello, Mr. Lawrence. Is it Mr. Smith? Kevin, I'm so sorry. Hello.
Speaker 2: Mr. Severance. Thank you for being present. As you've heard from the collective, our media does not approve the mid-cycle budget resolution. I think it's obvious to everyone present that the police budget needs the most attention and no details to be spared. We as a community cannot afford to glaze over as we cannot see how much overspending is made on our police department or other pockets of running dry and education. And there's absolutely no reason why 16 officers should be making over $250,000 in pay and benefits, and another additional 32 officers make 200,000 a year. These salaries can easily make up sex trafficking investigation and better fund the education system. And that same year that I am talking about, referring to 2018. Since we're raising money outside the Main Street ferry terminals for their displaced teachers as a result from the Napa fires. How shameful. Why can't we support our educators? We have the money for it. Our children are therefore thinkers of what it means to be a community. And yet our belief still needs to be told over and over again how to subvert, how to serve our civilians correctly. I demand firmly and sternly that we do a huge overhaul in the budget of police militarization. That money we we spend on making sure every officer's arm can be better spent on creating a mental health department for wellness checks. Along with that demand, we also sternly request we assemble a civilian review board, review board to keep the balance of justice and check their job would be to oversee the connections and balances that unions embedded into the police department make with their donation. So really what I'm asking for is financial transparency. And no solution to ending police brutality. I suggest create an institution for investigating inappropriate conduct and legal actions by law enforcement created outside the police department. I yield my time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker at Vinny Camarillo. Hopefully he has been able to update.
Speaker 1: I have. So. Yes. I see his name.
Speaker 3: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hello? Yes, I got.
Speaker 3: It. My name is Renee Camarillo, and I've been one of the youth organizers calling for justice for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and the countless lives lost to police brutality in light of the national reckoning with race. Dr. Cornel West has said, We are in a moment where we can stand on the right side of justice. Years ago, when policymakers began to have discussions of defunding the police, it seemed to have fallen closed closed doors. Today, due to the ongoing murders and harassment of innocent people in Minneapolis, in Atlanta and Oakland, in our very own town, Alameda. Defunding the police is the demand of the people. Major cities like Minneapolis and Seattle are making these commitments. We are a small town, do not have to wait on major urban cities to stand with justice. Listen to the demands and communities of color of the youth of the island. Not only will we be able to continue to fund more social services like the Amazing Survivor Center we just heard about, but much more when money is available, we will be able to fund better mental health services and counselors. So they are the first responders we would be able to help the homeless. So it is so it is not the police to harass them. I ask that we relook at this budget. Defund the police and social services. Please vote no on this budget. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Our next speaker is. I've lost my place.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you've lost your voice.
Speaker 0: You know I lost my place in the. Oh, I'm trying to get the other comments. Right. So, Jade, if Jade has updated hers, we'll try.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Jade, can you hear us? Oh, you're muted. You just need to unmute. Ms.. WEISBERGER, we don't see. Who can we meet on our side?
Speaker 0: Yeah, we. We have asked her to unmute, so we can't. Okay. We've moved her in.
Speaker 1: All right. All right. Just a minute.
Speaker 0: We can go on if you want to, to the next one and.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 1: And we'll come back.
Speaker 0: Yesterday, Lewis. Oh. Okay. Okay. It looks like we can't get Jade ten mute and we've lost data, so.
Speaker 1: Okay. How about going to email then comments? And then if people come into the queue or, you know, raise their hands, we'll get to them.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 1: That work.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. We will go on. So far, I think we have 23 to read into the record and we will take them and turn them off once it stops. So the first one is Molly Montgomery.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 4: Dear City Council of Alameda and City Manager Amos. Molly and I have been a resident of Alameda since June of 2019, and I hope to live in this community for many years to come. I'm submitting my comment on Agenda Item six regarding the adoption of the Midcycle budget and amendments. I urge you to reject the Midcycle budget resolution. Recent protests in favor of the Black Lives movement in the city of Alameda have shown that we are clearly are at a historical turning point in the city of Alameda, and we need to pause and take stock to give the community a chance to provide insight into the budget , especially regarding the amount of money allocated to the Alameda Police Department. Instead of approving the budget as it currently stands. The City Council needs to solicit more input from the community starting tomorrow at its town hall meeting. The city council must begin the process of transitioning away from funding a police department that does not serve the needs of its citizens, one that responds to people dancing in the street with the threat of arrest. Instead, the city of Alameda should divert funds to community based safety programs that will ensure the safety of all of its residents, particularly black and brown community members. Therefore, I urge you to consider the following measures. One. Shift Patrol positions. The majority of the police budget into community support professionals looked other cities who have had success in dispatching community support professionals versus armed officers to reallocate overtime funding into funds for crossing guards and other infrastructure projects to make our streets safer for walkers and bikers . Three. Sell any military equipment owned by APD to fund community investments. This is not the time to maintain the status quo of funding the police department at its current budget levels while accepting small changes at the margins. Such reforms will not change the underlying harmful role the police in Alameda play in making black and brown residents feel afraid and unwelcome in our city. Instead, it is time to allow the residents of Alameda to envision a safer, more inclusive community by investing in programs that will benefit all its residents. In conclusion, I urge you to reject item six so that more community input can be gathered before the budget is approved. The time.
Speaker 0: Okay. That was time. So the next speaker. Okay. Savannah, cheer.
Speaker 4: Hello. Council and City Manager Levitt. My name is Savannah and I have lived in Alameda for a little over two years now. I'm submitting my comment on agenda item six regarding the adoption of the Midcycle budget and amendments. As I know you're all aware, right now, our country is facing an extraordinary and long overdue look in the mirror. Specifically, we're having an energetic and necessary conversation about public safety, harm reduction, and what purpose policing plays in our society. This conversation has come to Alameda and it's about time. Policing in America has failed. Police departments do not deliver on their fundamental charge, keeping communities safe. Any other profession that exhibited the level of violence, bias and dysfunction that American police do would have come under wide question by now. The simultaneous societal condition that has to be addressed in discussing the broken public safety system in America is inequality. Inequality exists because of health care, housing, social and education systems that were designed by and primarily benefit white people. Systemic racism is real, and anyone debating that at this point is just ridiculous and ignorant. Crime occurs because of inequality. Cities and towns across our country need to be asking themselves right now, how can we address conditions of inequality so that we reduce and potentially eliminate crime, thus rendering policing unnecessary. Systemic changes required right now. This should be a collective effort, and we can start right here with policing and public safety in Alameda. This will mean dismantling the dangerous and harmful tradition upon which modern policing in America is built and a re-imagination of what health and safety looks like in our city. We can do this. And honestly, if not now, when? Our bipoc neighbors should not have to wait a day longer. The first and immediate step we need to take is to begin the process of divesting from the Alameda Police Department in favor of investing in our community. We have to start to reallocate the APD funding to community health and safety initiatives aimed at addressing inequality, thus reducing crime.
Speaker 0: Next is Aaron Frazier. Fraser.
Speaker 4: Dear Council Mayor and staff. I am a resident of Alameda and I, like many, was deeply troubled by the systemic racism demonstrated by the May 23rd detention and assault of Mr. Molly Watkins in our city and by the Alameda Police Department, APD. It provides me no comfort that Mr. Watkins was not killed by APD, the deeply ingrained racism which led to the call to dispatch the response by the dispatcher. And finally, the response by the officers is clear to all with open eyes. A radical and immediate response was warranted. And yet, nearly a month later, what tangible action has the city or the council taken? Tonight you will vote on the Midcycle budget. The proposed mid-cycle budget is presumably unchanged since the racist detention of Mr. Watkins. Specifically, the APD budget has not been adjusted in a manner which would demonstrate that the city and the Council take seriously the history and presence of racism in Alameda. A vote for this unchanged mid-cycle budget is a vote for continuing the status quo, the status quo as systemic racism. And so your vote for the mid-cycle budget is a vote for systemic racism. For this reason, I urge you to take the following steps immediately tabled the budget until discussions about radically transforming policing in Alameda have at least started. Shift APD patrol positions. The majority of the police budget into community support professionals. Shift APD overtime funding into funds for crossing guards. And sell LAPD's military grade equipment to fund infrastructure investments. These steps are needed not because of what happened in Minneapolis to George Floyd or what is happening across the country. These steps are needed because of what happened here in our city less than a month ago. I urge you to vote against systemic racism. I urge you to vote against the status quo. And thus I urge you to vote against the Midcycle budget. Sincerely.
Speaker 0: Next is Nelson Laich.
Speaker 4: My name is Nelson Lee. I'm a father of three and resident homeowner in Alameda since 2005. I demand that the city council take immediate action to start the process of addressing the systemic and persistent issues of our policing in our community. The first step will be to reject the current Midcycle budget resolution and take this opportunity to make the necessary cuts to the police department and reinvest those dollars into other community services that would enhance our community. Cutting the police budget should be aligned with narrowing the focus of the police. Removing police from patrolling school grounds and eliminating participation in militarized police training. Also, while I'm aware that possible larger budget shortfalls will likely be coming in the future for the city, we should prioritize funding services over policing. The city should not only maintain the current level of funding for services, but invest in such programs like first responders trained in mental health, first aid, mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment, youth programs in school and after school, parks and recreation. I also am aware there's a push for reforms in the shape of the Can't Wait campaign and will be discussed at the special 617 Council meeting. This must be the absolute minimum. We need more drastic policy and structural changes. This should include transparency in how we follow up on complaints against officers and changes to the policy that gives way too much power to the police chief to direct the investigation and determine the course of discipline in cases of misconduct. It was also shocking to me that there is a police policy that basically allows police to use race as a way to establish probable cause. As we've seen here in Alameda, in the case of Mr. Watkins, had it not been made public by a video captured by a witness, the police would have happily kept this quiet, and it would have been just another black man being manhandled for no reason except for existing in Alameda. We need higher standards for those who have been entrusted with our safety and have the ability to use deadly force. While I appreciate some of the city council members and mayors proclaiming a commitment to listening more.
Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Next is Maggie Jacobs.
Speaker 4: Hello, everyone, and thank you for this time. I will try to be brief. Before the budget vote, I wanted to take a minute to bring some attention to the nationwide and worldwide protests that have been happening in response to the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and a heartbreakingly long list of names of black people and people of color who have been killed or injured as a result of police brutality. I appreciate that the council has also been paying attention to this issue and plans on holding a special city council meeting tomorrow to discuss it. My decision to address the issue of police violence here instead of waiting for tomorrow's meeting is because I believe that one of the solutions begins here with a budget. Over the past few weeks, there has been a growing awareness and acceptance of the movement to defund police departments, a move that may seem alarming before a closer reading . But what it boils down to is the reallocation over time of police budgets into other areas of community need, areas that we have been content to foist on to police departments for far too long and with sometimes disastrous results. Instead of allocating resources to try and turn police into an all purpose problem patrol, we have an opportunity here to reexamine the roles that we want the police to play in our community. And whether some of them, such as welfare checks on the homeless or mentally ill, would be more successfully performed by those with more training and more time to help. I am aware that I am bringing this perspective late into the budget conversation and I do not hold any illusions to my impact on the vote here today. I only hope that the Council will see this moment in time as the opportunity that it is, and that they also examine the possibilities presented by the reallocation of police budgets as an avenue to make Alameda safer for its black community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next we have Justine. Well, it's her.
Speaker 4: Hello. Alameda City officials. My name is Justine Waltzer and I have been a resident of Alameda since last year. I am loving my new home and want Alameda to be the best it can be. I am demanding that you reject the Midcycle budget resolution. I feel that it is a blatant failure to represent the community's recent demands to divert funds away from the police and reinvest them into the community. $37.5 million is an absurd annual expenditure for a department that has continuously abused power and inflicted racial trauma upon our community members. This is not to mention the $1.9 million in expenditures for pensions. I demand you to reject the current budget resolution and allocate funding in accordance with the following two changes immediately. One Reduce the expenditures for the police department by 40%. Here are some proposed changes to achieve this minimize the size of the police force. Remove officers with high rates of excessive force misconduct. Remove officers from patrolling school grounds. Withdraw LAPD participation in police militarization programs. Require officers to be liable for misconduct, settlements and defense attorney payments. Discard the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation. Limit overtime accrual and overtime pay for weapons training to divert savings to caring for underprivileged parts of our community by investing in community care programs such as but not limited to first responders trained in mental health, first aid, youth programs that promote learning, safety and community care . Non-coercive drug and alcohol treatment programing, non-coercive mental health care, community wellness resources. Peer support networks, community tutors and counselors, community child care, community based grocery cooperatives, gardens and farms. The recent racial incidents in this nation and on this island have shown us that the system fails to protect and support black and park community members. We see these failures represented even within the APD policy itself. For example.
Speaker 0: Okay. Next, that was out of time. So next is E Patterson.
Speaker 4: In my lifetime, I have seen Alameda reach the national news for two things both shameful. The mistreatment of Mr. Watkins by the police was the most recent. The other in 2011 was the death of Raymond Zack, who died in the bay as our emergency response personnel did nothing to help. Both of these events are the direct result of lack of any alternative to the police. Mr. Zack could have been saved with a professional trained in mental illness. Mr. Watkins would not have been violently apprehended if he was instead addressed by some sort of social worker trained in de-escalation. Aggressive men approaching with guns is not the way to help our citizens. We must immediately reduce the expenditures of the police department and invest in community programs and staff that can actually help people in crisis. The current budget cannot pass. When you have a hammer, everything starts looking like nails. When you have an overpowered police force, every citizen starts looking like a criminal. You cannot continue to let our citizens get treated like criminals. Sincerely.
Speaker 0: Okay. Next is Jessica O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I would like the council to publicly read the following facts. Alameda Police Department is scheduled to receive a budget of $37.5 million dollars to cover a population of 78,000 people. The Alameda Police Department's budget is just shy of the $40 million dollars spent on the entire military of South Korea, a country with a population of nearly 52 million people. Where is this money going? How much of that budget has been spent on tear gas? How much has gone for armored tank style vehicles? How much has gone to militarize the police force of what is essentially a small town? I want transparency now. I want to know where that money is being spent now. I want choke and stranglehold spent. I want de-escalation required. I want all alternatives to be exhausted before shooting required. I want a ban on shooting at moving vehicles. I want a ban on use of force continuum. I want reports required when a firearm is pointed at a civilian. I want all officers involved in the excessive force against an arrest of Molly Watkins to be placed under investigation without pay immediately. I want the names of those officers released. I want to see action by the city's leaders to defund the police and reroute funding to trained unarmed social workers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The robot is next. But.
Speaker 4: The police were never meant to be, nor should they become a standing army. The level at which we are funding our police and the power they are given is incredibly disproportionate to education, public health and social services. That would mitigate many of the conditions that cause us to deploy police armed forces. A very poor response to most situations, and police overreaction seems more constant than an exception. The police should be a public service equal to firefighting, mail delivery and social services, and a lesser service than health and education. Their budget should reflect this. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Next is Nikki Kim.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Nikki Kim and I've been organizing Alameda Youth for the past three weeks in response to the unjust killings and harassment of black people in this country and in this area. We have had several marches in Alameda, sit ins at Alameda Police Department and a vigil recently. We are attending today's city council meeting to reread our statement and to share our demands of the proposed budget conversation. These are our demands of the city of Alameda officials to end police terror. We, the people of Alameda, California, stand with the Black Lives Matter movement. It is evident from the video that went viral of a black man being arrested for exercising in the street on May 23rd, 2020, that the Alameda Police Department is not exempt from the bias perpetrated and disproportionately against black people, indigenous people and other people of color. From this point forward, we will not tolerate excessive force, harassment or racial profiling of any sort. Our city officials have made it clear that they are not interested in systemic change developed by local impacted youth and families. Therefore, we demand the following one release the names of the officers involved in the arrest of Mr. Watkins, a black man in Alameda, for exercising in the street on May 23rd, 2020 immediately, as well as the unedited body camera footage in the video to immediately place the involved officers on administrative leave pending investigation. We don't want them patrolling our streets and continuing to use excessive force against black and brown men in Alameda. Three. Defund the police. Provide audit of police budget with a focus on redirecting resources toward education services, health care, welfare, public housing and other social services. Immediately, we want to reinvest in community based alternatives to 911 calls such as mental health and intervention workers as well outside of first responders for quarterly release of police use of force and arrest by race data. We want those happening consistently and made public to all of Alameda five. We want independent oversight to review police conduct an excessive use of force six. Remove all law enforcement from schools.
Speaker 0: That was time. And our next is a text message in the person who did not provide their name.
Speaker 4: As a resident of Alameda, I would like to know how much of the APD budget is allocated for the purchase, storage, maintenance and distribution of tear gas. This and all other chemical weapons are prohibited for use in warfare under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, enforced by a number of international treaties.
Speaker 0: Next is Rachel Wollman.
Speaker 4: I demand you to reject the current budget resolution and allocate funding in accordance with the following two changes immediately reduce the expenditures for the police department by 40%. Minimize the size of the police force. Remove officers with high rates of excessive force misconduct. Remove officers from patrolling school grounds. Withdraw LAPD participation in police militarization programs. Require officers to be liable for misconduct, settlements and defense attorney payments. Discard the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation. Limit overtime accrual and overtime pay for weapons training. Divert savings to caring for underprivileged parts of our community by investing in community care programs such as but not limited to first responders trained in mental health, first aid, youth programs that promote learning, safety and community care. Non-coercive drug and alcohol treatment programing, non-coercive mental health care, community wellness resources. Peer support networks, community tutors and counselors, community child care, community based grocery cooperatives, gardens and farms. The recent racial incidents in this nation and on this island have shown us that the system fails to protect and support black and community members. We see these failures represented even within the APD policy itself. For example, Policy 402.3 supports using suspect description limited to a specific race or group to establish probable cause even when there is misconduct. There is no guarantee of discipline because policy 1020141 delegates to the police chief the sole responsibility of determining the course of discipline in cases of misconduct. These policies pave the way for racial misconduct and thus are a form of racial violence. I demand that funds are diverted away from the police department, which perpetuates these failures with an atrocious lack of transparency and accountability. And I demand that the funds are reinvested back into the parts of our community that need it the most. Failure to reject this resolution and revise the Midcycle budget update is a misrepresentation of our desires as a community and a misuse of our tax dollars. We, the people, are watching you, our representatives, and we will take action until our needs are met.
Speaker 0: Next is John A.
Speaker 4: My name is Johnny and I have been a resident of Alameda for four years now. I am demanding that you reject the Midcycle budget resolution as it stands. I feel that you have not been listening to the community, especially the demands our community has been making recently. The community, similar to other communities across the country, are demanding a diversion of city funds. Funds that taxpayers, such as myself and every other resident of the island contributes to. Away from police and back into the community. 37.5 million is an absurd figure for an affluent and privileged community such as Alameda, which does not have a crime problem. The police have shown time and time again, most recently with Molly Watkins, that they are not properly utilizing the enormous funds that are given to them. They are instead using their positions of power to terrorize innocent citizens. I demand that the police budget be reduced by minimizing the size of the police force, removing officers with high rates of excessive force misconduct, removing officers from schools across the city, withdrawing APD from police militarization programs require officers to be liable for misconduct. Settlements and defense attorney payments. Discard the use of paid administrative leave for police officers under investigation. Limit overtime accrual and overtime pay for weapons waste to spend. Funds saved by reducing police. Investing in first responders trained in mental health. First aid. Investing in youth programs that promote learning, safety and community care. Investing in non-coercive drug and alcohol treatment programs. Investing in mental health care. Investing in dealing with the homeless. Crisis affecting all Bay Area cities. Investing in community childcare. Investing in peer support networks. Investing in community. We need to use our tax dollars to uplift people instead of perpetuating an endless cycle of violence. Sincerely.
Speaker 0: Next is Danielle. Meet Mailer.
Speaker 4: I am a 12 year resident, raising two young boys in this community. In light of revelations of Alameda police conduct in the arrest of Molly Watkins, I have serious concerns about the conduct of Alameda police in that situation and others in which members of our community have been unfairly targeted by police. I believe that Alameda can remain a safe and secure community for its residents and improve quality of life for our residents by reducing the police budget so that police focus on criminal activity and not non criminal quality of life issues. I believe that some fundamental changes are needed to our police system in Alameda to change to the scope of responsibilities, reduce the police budget and divert funds to programs and services that benefit minority communities. Funding in programs such as education, health care, welfare, public housing and social services, if directed to those most in need, will pay dividends and proactively reduce crime in our community. I also ask Council conduct a comprehensive audit of the police budget and identify appropriate cuts and reinvestment in community services.
Speaker 0: Next is a text message and the person did not provide a name.
Speaker 4: Agenda Item six. Hello, City Council members. I respectfully request that you not approve the current police budget and that you take this opportunity to act in the direction of decreasing funding for the police department and reallocate funding to serve our community in a more holistic and socially just way. Policing in its current form is essential structure of white supremacy, as evidenced by countless acts of police brutality against our black and brown citizens around the country. The incident on May 23rd indicates that Alameda is not immune to the toxic, violent, racist culture of policing. While I recognize that defunding the police may seem like a radical concept, a review of the history reveals that policing is not only a modern concept, but was designed largely to control and brutalize black and brown bodies. I urge you to view the guidance offered by the eight two abolition campaign and the defunding ideas presented by black activist leaders and make a commitment now to redefine policing in our city.
Speaker 0: Next is Dick Nguyen.
Speaker 4: To the council I emerging you not to pass the mid-cycle budget resolution. I feel that the budget update is a failure to represent the community's recent calls to divert funds away from the police and reinvest them into the community. $37.5 million is too large an annual expenditure for a department that perpetuates and reinforces the systemic racism that pervades our local and national community. Please do not pass the budget resolution until there has been significant input from the community on how to move forward with the police department budget and significant revision to the mid-cycle update reflecting the community's desires. The savings need to be diverted to caring for our community in a way that is directed by the community at large, not just by the smaller, privileged portion of the community that is able to log on to zoom meetings. Please come up with intelligent and creative solutions to engage with less privileged parts of the community. Please do the work to fairly represent our needs as a community.
Speaker 0: Next is Lewis Booth.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name? Louise Booth. First of all, I appreciate the Juneteenth celebration, but I ask that we take a step back from the celebration of emancipation and take a good look at where racial issues are today. People of color are still thoroughly oppressed, and the current budget resolution does nothing to address this. In fact, I am demanding that you reject and revise the mid-cycle budget resolution because it is clear that it was created a negligence of the community's recent demands to defund the police and address police brutality. While I appreciate the sentiment of discussing it, can't wait and freezing hiring in the police force. This is absolutely not enough. Can't wait is not the topic of this meeting. But it is important to note that the bold 72% reduction claims were made based on faulty research. First of all, it was only based on 18 months of data and only 91 police departments. This is too small a sample size and time frame to make such grand claims. Additionally, cities that have implemented a number of these policies have still seen horrible cases of police brutality. Hennepin County, Minnesota had a can't wait policies, but George Floyd was still murdered. The Campaign Zero website has even altered their webpage. Eight Can't wait dawg to concede to the vast amount of scrutiny and criticism that they have been under in the past three weeks. Campaign zero themselves have even admitted that eight can't Wait fails to create any sort of valuable change to police systems. Instead, we need to, one, reduce the expenditures for the police department by 40%. Here are some proposed changes to achieve this minimize the size of the police force. Remove officers with high rates of excessive force misconduct, remove officers from patrolling school grounds. Withdraw APD participation in police militarization programs. Require officers to be liable for misconduct. Settlements and defense attorney payments. Discard the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation. Limit overtime accrual and overtime pay for weapons training to divert savings to caring for underprivileged parts.
Speaker 0: Okay, that was time. The next one is a text message from someone who did not identify a name.
Speaker 4: Why has Alameda police not yet released a statement concerning the police brutality present in both Alameda, Oakland and other neighboring cities? Why has Alameda police chosen to remain silent while Oakland police exploit their power and violently attacked peaceful protesters, including young children and teenagers? Finally, when will your plans to remove police officers from all LAUSD schools be announced and put into action? There is no need for money to be spent on officers in public schools. There are alternatives to officers patrolling our schools every day of the week. Instead, why don't we pay our teachers living wages and invest in education services to help those in need, such as those with learning disabilities or challenging home environments?
Speaker 0: Okay. Next is another text message from someone who did not provide a name.
Speaker 4: I am in support of more policing in Alameda. Please increase funding and keep Alameda safe. I want more of our great uniformed heroes patrolling.
Speaker 0: Okay. And another text message from someone who did not provide any.
Speaker 4: I am thankful for the Alameda Police Department and the investment they make in our community. Alameda is a safe place to live because of their work. I am favor of keeping our police department funded.
Speaker 0: And next is Linda Astbury from West Alameda Business Association.
Speaker 4: Mayor as he Ashcraft, Vice Mayor John White, council members Malia Vella, Jim Marty and Tony de Saag. Considering the current climate of policing in Alameda and most everywhere in the United States, some changes will be necessary on behalf of the West Alameda Business Association Board of Directors. We are asking for money currently in the budget for sworn police officers be reallocated to the hiring of community officers to assist in non crime issues in Alameda. There are a number of issues on Webster Street that are no longer being addressed by the police department and they are detrimental to our district. Our directive is to keep a clean, safe and inviting environment for our merchants. This has been a very difficult time and the change in policing is making our district suffer. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request. I am available for further conversations regarding our needs and how we can contribute to the well-being of Alameda. Linda.
Speaker 0: Next is another text message from someone who did not provide any.
Speaker 4: This is a shame. We do not support defunding the police department. Don't vote in favor of decreasing the budget. Cities like Camden and Detroit are prime examples of why defunding is a fatal decision.
Speaker 0: Next is Ashley Mullens.
Speaker 4: Hello. City Council members, I respectfully request that you not approve the current police budget and that you take this opportunity to act in the direction of decreasing funding for the police department and reallocate funding to serve our community in a more holistic and socially just way. Policing in its current form is a central structure of white supremacy, as evidenced by countless acts of police brutality against our black and brown citizens around the country. The incident on May 23rd indicates that Alameda is not immune to the toxic, violent, racist culture of policing. While I recognize that defunding the police may seem like a radical concept, a review of the history reveals that policing is not only a modern concept, but was designed largely to control and brutalize black and brown bodies. I urge you to view the guidance offered by the two abolition campaign and the defunding ideas presented by black activist leaders and make a commitment now to redefine policing in our city.
Speaker 0: And the next one, which is the last one, is from Dee Dee Lewis. So since we couldn't get her on, she submitted her comment and we got it.
Speaker 4: Dear Alameda City Council. I should have woken up my kids to help me sort out my Zoom update issue. Anyway, like so many Alabamians, I am calling on you to reevaluate the Midcycle budget. I echo the concerns of so many of my neighbors in terms of a systemic racism and culture within our police department. I am calling on you to reallocate funds specifically towards mandatory de-escalation training and anti-bias training throughout the department. As a mother and involved parent in Naya USD, I am calling on the city to remove the police from our schools. A school staff is working hard to reimagine what school will look like when we return. We need you to support the mend. The funds that go to police on campus are a great start. We know we have a significant need for academic, social, mental health and behavioral interventions for students as they return to school. We have significant data to show police are not the appropriate ones to provide these services. We need in school community resources, counselors and restorative justice practices. I am urging you to help provide the very best for all of our kids because they are all our kids.
Speaker 0: And that's it. Unless anybody else on the zoom that I think we had. Jade. Did Jade make it back and have. Okay. Unfortunately, I'm sorry we didn't get to hear Jade. Oh, you're muted, Mayor.
Speaker 3: Did we hear from Maya Edwards?
Speaker 1: We heard from a maya early on, I think. Was it on this item?
Speaker 3: May not have written it down.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Um. Band just went down. Never mind. So clearly. Clearly. I just missed one.
Speaker 1: Okay, um. Let's see. So. I'm sorry, Madam Clerk. I was asking you if we had any. Anyone still raising their hand in the, um. In the audience among the participants?
Speaker 0: We do not. No one additionally has raised their hand or. Is. Okay.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, so with that, I will then close public comment and we will bring the comment back to the council. So, um, who would like to lead off?
Speaker 3: I'm wondering if I can make a quick motion spin that we're 9 minutes from 11.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, sometimes the city clerk is ahead of you. We don't have any agenda item after this, so we don't need a motion. I mean, if you wanted to make a motion that we don't go past midnight. I'm in that.
Speaker 3: Not on this item.
Speaker 1: Well, um. Let's see, we've, um. Yeah, we've. We've got more to discuss tomorrow too, but let's get going.
Speaker 3: Great. I was also going to include a.
Speaker 1: Call on the vice mayor then to comment. And if you're not making a motion.
Speaker 3: I was going to I was going to make a motion that we actually suspend our 9 minutes. Not that I think I have more than 9 minutes, but I just think this is a big item. And if we end up in a big discussion, rather than maybe we could just allow ourselves to converse tonight.
Speaker 1: Um, I think it's great to converse always. But I also want to be mindful of time. So, um, but, you know, 9 minutes can seem a bit skimpy. Do you have a hard time as opposed to just open ended?
Speaker 3: I would just go open ended tonight. That would be my motion.
Speaker 2: I'll second that. For the sake of discussion. I don't want to spend a lot of time. I don't understand. Right, right, right. More time. But I think we should all just be cognizant of the late hour and the fact that we have another meeting tomorrow. And we could you know, I think that there's a potential for this to be the start of a bigger conversation.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Vella. I didn't mean to cut you off. Keep going.
Speaker 2: I'm fine to spending the 9 minutes just keeping in mind all of those things.
Speaker 1: I, I appreciate your comments. I am also trying to be respectful to people who would like to follow this conversation and might not want to stay up past midnight to do so. So that's where I'm coming from. But we have a motion, we have a second to just suspend time, but be respectful of time, I guess. Right. Okay. Any discussion that's ever roll call vote with.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG?
Speaker 3: Uh, yes, sir.
Speaker 0: Next flight.
Speaker 3: I. Sure.
Speaker 0: Yes, Bella. I may or as the Ashcraft. I that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Who would like to leave?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Odie as I start with the question of the city manager. So. Can we kind of level set with the community that's listening on what it is that this mid-cycle budget is and what it isn't?
Speaker 1: Counselor? Yes. And you've committed.
Speaker 3: Yes. What the mid-cycle is and what it is not. Well, I guess I could. I can't. I don't know if I can answer that question directly. I'm not sure if I understand the question directly. But I will say that, um, the city council passed a two year budget. Um, not all cities have a two year budget. They have many cities have an annual budget. The first city I've worked in that has a two year budget. Um, but they passed, the council passed a two year budget in 2019. So structurally the council, if you don't pass a budget tonight, we would continue what you passed in tonight, 2019 into the next year, which I can go back and tell you what that would mean as far as the police budget, if you want, I can go back and find that fairly quickly. The um, so that is one option. An option also is you could change the budget tonight. It's difficult to understand all the impacts. As far as you're aware, we started working on this budget for the mid-cycle in probably January of this year. Obviously January was a different time, a lot of different situations. And today since we started working on the budget and Jennifer Towle, who's who's managing the budget, has dealt with a variety of issues, one of which was our finance director left during the middle of the budget preparation. And Jennifer had only been here and she's only been here since November or December, I guess December of 2019. And so the the finance director left we've obviously had COVID 19. And there's. And substantive losses in revenue since then that she's had to project. And then now we are trying to respond to issues and concerns with the police department. So the issues and concerns of the police department did. Did start to be come obvious because this budget was was. Initially present in May, which was prior to it. A lot of this discussion as far as the concerned, as far as the initial proposed budget was back in early May, early to mid-May, and that was before a lot of these concerns in the council at that time discussed it. And then the presentation that was given was actually put on line for the final budget presentation probably ten days ago, 10 to 11 days ago. So, um, so there are various things you can do one, one including you're going to be have a dialog as far as changes services and how we, we should change policing and how we should redirect other services and that will take planning out there. There are ways that you could ask us to deal with the budget in order to deal with that. And process wise, because I know the Council is planning on having other meetings starting tomorrow on policing and we do have a. Look at the budget, a relook at the budget in October, which is about three and a half months from now. And the reason you're doing that is because COVID 19, you could add this to one of the issues to be looked at. I don't know that I answered your question specifically, councilor morality, but that's the best answer I probably have for your question.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Brody, did you have further clarification you wanted?
Speaker 3: I think that was a good overview of the process. So we'll have to explore some of these alternatives as we continue. I see. I can feel them somewhere at this point.
Speaker 1: Okay. I see. Councilmember Villa has her hand up.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor, thank you. And I am going to be making a motion and then hopefully that can set off some discussion among us that I hope will be productive and I am confident will be productive. I've drafted something with the help of Vice Mayor Knox White, and I've sent it. I think both John and I have sent it to Laura. If that can get sent out or shown to the council.
Speaker 0: We can do both.
Speaker 1: Okay. That would be nice.
Speaker 2: And I'm fine sharing it with the public. I want to start by thanking thanking my colleagues for the amount of time I know we've all spent. To date and trying to be responsive, participating with the community, listening to folks, not a man. I know you've coordinated a couple very important roundtable discussions that I think have helped been transformative. The certainly the the town hall that the vice mayor hosted on Sunday that I know we all listened to and we're listening in on has been, I think, eye opening, to say the least. And I think that as a community were embarking on a longer conversation about what transformative change means for us.
Speaker 1: I just I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt and freeze your time plate or not even worry about time. Madam Clerk, will you please email this to me? Because I would to all of us, cause I would like to actually read the whole thing rather than watch it scroll up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: It was so.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 0: Yeah, it might just be coming through the system now.
Speaker 1: Okay. Now it's here. Okay, guys.
Speaker 2: Got it. Got it.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: So. You know, I think what we're hearing from the public is that the police should not be managing a myriad of social problems and that what they want to see happen is that those in need should receive care that benefits them instead of criminalizing those in need of services. And I think that that's something that's admirable and worth striving for. I also know that making sure that we develop a short, medium and long term systemic and systematic response is going to take time. So I'd like to make the following motion to approve the budget with the following direction. A special city council meeting will be called before June 30th with one agenda item that would be in addition to the meeting we have set tomorrow. The City Council Workshop would be on setting goals, discussing concepts and work planning in support of engaging the Alameda community, in discussions of transforming how our city provides community services. Responsive and law enforcement. And there's one budget point sorry, one bullet point that I wanted to put under this. And I did run this by our city attorney and. So the one point that I would like to put to that is also specifically for us to review and provide direction on policing policies and procedures. The 2021 budget would be approved with the direction that it returned for further consideration in October 2020, with proposed changes identified and developed during the Council and community engagement process. The Council will hold a special city special city council meetings as needed and work through the August break to facilitate the process for transforming how our city provides community services, responses and law enforcement. Staff will return to the Council with a proposal for changing any response protocols for all new to police, including any changes announced in May or June 2020, including and I would like to add this including any budgetary impacts. All policing policy changes will be brought to the City Council for approval before implementation. In the instance for changes in state or federal law. Our law courts rule that changes required changes can be made and brought to the next available council meeting for ratification and if approved, posted to the city website. And this is about. Laura, can you scroll down a little bit? As the 1920 budget had significantly reduced funding for the police department that resulted in nearly $3 million in savings. The budget is approved with the following stipulations relative to the police budget. We will hold current vacancies until the October budget meeting. Grant the City Manager Authority to shift funds as needed through October 2020, with continued public reporting to cover changes in service related to service response policies that are approved by the City Council or House, and I would add, or have been announced and will be implemented before October 2020. Begin the process to sell the Ballistic Armored Tactical Transport Response Vehicle that's our armored tank that was purchased a few years ago and returned to council with policies that outline collaboration with regional partners for the rare occasion when such a vehicle may be needed. In an effort to demilitarize our police department. Funds allocated to APD may not be used to purchase, procure or maintain military grade equipment that would include tear gas armored vehicles. Blast balls, water cannons, things like that. And we support the proposed removal of the city police staff from Al NIDA schools. Per the agreement made with AUC.
Speaker 3: Adama. Can I second that motion?
Speaker 1: Yes, you may, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. We've had a motion. We've had a second. Let's discuss. Let's see if they'd like to see you all. That's how I know you're raising your hands, too. I guess I could go down into the participants, but no. Okay. Um. Okay. Um, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 3: Thanks. I'll try to be brief because, you know, there's a lot that can be said about this, but I think what's most important is I think what I heard from my colleague was that, you know, this council will continue the work that we're doing to to solve this problem so quickly. I. I appreciate this, uh, this this motion. Um, I had one kind of clarifying thing, and I wish I remember what it was, but somebody said something to me in passing that, you know, it's not just military equipment. Somehow we sometimes can get something surplus or, you know, it's not technically military equipment. So I'd like to learn more about that. There was a term that was used and I wish I could remember it and I wanted to listen to the speakers and not search my email or phone for it. So, um. I think as we look at this, we have to be forward looking and understand that. We need to focus on outcomes. And I think the vice mayor always talks about this as well and Eric and Jennifer tell in their budgets are outcome based. So let's envision the police force and the policing policy that we want and then we will the budget will follow, right? Not just, you know, make a budget decision and then build something based on that budget decision. So I believe needs to be outcome based. I think all stakeholders need to be included. And that was that was mentioned, I think, by Grover early on. I think that that's critical. I think what's happened in the last week or so has been a little whiplash. And I think we heard some of the comments from, I think Mr. Kalikow and others about there's just some confusion. And, you know, there's there's not a lot of input from the council. Granted, this is our first meeting. But, you know, knowing the attention that that's being placed on Alameda and being placed on this issue nationwide, I think that that effort or whatever, whatever has been done today, could have been done less in a vacuum and more more inclusive. So. You know, just to pontificate for 30 seconds. I saw something in the beginning of the number where it was on TV in our movie. You know, as elected officials, you know, our leaders, we should try to to solve the problems that we don't think can be solved in our lifetimes. And that was like super aspirational to me because I didn't really think about a lot of these things, you know, this this issue. You know, I was almost getting immune to seeing the videos of people of color getting murdered or getting beaten up. And it was like, when is when are people going to wake up? Right? When are we going to start demanding change? And I say we I mean, those of us in charge, those of us that look like me because our communities of color have been carrying this burden for so long. And, you know, we remember I remember 1988, I didn't think there would be the fall of the Iron Curtain or the fall of the Berlin Wall a year later. You know, I remember 2002 when, you know, people won campaigns based on how anti-gay they could be. And then, you know, just you know, just this week, you know, we have a law that says if you're transgender, you can't be discriminated against in your employment. And that was like I didn't even imagine that that was something that was possible, let alone, you know, that someone like me could marry the person that I want to marry. So, I mean, I you look at those things and it's like now is the opportunity for us to to do our part. I mean, we we had a wake up call here in Alameda. And I think we need we need to do our part and play a role in leading. Um, so I, so I, I think this motion and capsulize is the areas I want to focus on. So I'll just briefly recap them. Well, first of all, I think there's an issue outside policing that needs to be looked at. And, you know, I heard it in some of the comments, some of the anonymous comments. You know, there's not a lot of empathy. You know, the mayor gave a brilliant speech a few weeks ago on the steps of city hall. And we stopped we sat there and we listened to child after child talk about their experiences. Experiences. I don't have experiences. I mean, I'm grateful my kids haven't had. But, you know, if you are I'm just going to say this. If you're a white person in Alameda, for the most part, you don't know what those experiences are. I don't know what those are like. You know, and so we need to understand that there's systemic racism and that, you know, we need to have some empathy for what these kids and not even kids, but but adults. So that's an issue that's totally outside of policing that. You know, I think this culture of the Spurs talked about it. We as white people, I'm going to say that white people need to do more because the burden of this problem, fixing this problem is falling on our communities of color. So we can talk more about that tomorrow. But I think as far as that policing, there's kind of what three things I came into today thinking and then I see this motion and I hear the communicate or hear the comments. You know, one is focused on accountability. So there is a perception that there's no accountability. There are a lot of people writing to us and basically say, where's the accountability? So I don't know what that looks like, but I think every single idea, some one of our speakers said that today needs to be on the table. So whether that's a citizen's commission or, you know, whether it's a charter change, I want to hear all of the ideas. I want to hear what's good. I want to hear what's bad. I want to hear what's worked, what doesn't work. And that's just policymakers with the input of the community and all the stakeholders should should decide the best way forward. You know, there has to be a focus on services. I mean, we heard that, right? I mean, should should the police be doing everything that they've been doing? I mean, again, let let's take a look at that. You know, we have a community paramedic medicine program that's you know, we've been cutting the budget down, but, you know, that has some success in some areas. And maybe that type of thing can be can be ported over into into other areas. So, I mean, that's not to say that's a solution. I'm just saying I want to see all the ideas. I want to see all the possible solutions, and I want to see analysis of them. And we can we can choose. And then the last one is the procedures, right? So we heard a lot of discussion about that as well. But, you know, once we decide what it is that our police departments to do, then we need to look at the procedures. The one thing I will advise folks is, you know, I've. You know, worked with this and seen it work in other cities. But I have patience with the program. If a program is not showing results in a year or two or three years, don't just automatically cut it and go back to what what we have now, because that's not going to solve any problems. Right. I worked with Davon Bogan as an officer in neighborhood services in Richmond, and they they had a program we don't have this, thankfully, where they had they were having 50 people murdered a year and they got that down to two. Well, the first two years, three years of the program, it was not working. And people were trying to defund it and trying to cut it and say, let's just go back to the old way. But thankfully, the leaders there in Richmond and I think the LGBT police chief, I'm not mistaken, basically said no, have patience with it , and it eventually worked. So some of these things may be more costly than we are paying today. So these things may take more time then than we have patience for. But whatever it is that we put in place to fix this problem, I begged our residents to have faith and have patience that it will work. So I said more than I thought I was going to say. So I'm going to sit back and listen to everyone else now.
Speaker 1: Well, it wouldn't be pontificating if you just.
Speaker 3: Said.
Speaker 1: And by the way, that Supreme Court vote was 6 to 3, which I thought was remarkable in itself. Okay. Who's up next? Vice Mayor. Not quite.
Speaker 3: Enough. Councilmember de SA isn't interested. I'll speak for a second. I'd like to start in a couple of places. So I want to thank everybody who spoke tonight for speaking. And it was really nice to look at the participants list and see everybody who's on the zoom call who didn't speak, but we've received your emails, etc.. I did want to say I looked during the break, I saw 245 emails about the budget that I haven't responded to. So you haven't heard from me? I'm sorry. You know, Councilmember Odie started this off with a question about about the budget. And I know that we've had calls about not not accepting, rejecting this, not revising it, etc.. And I just wanted to clarify. We have already approved a 37,000,037, $500, $500,000 budget for the police department. The revision tonight actually takes it down from where it was a little bit. So not taking action tonight doesn't result in anything other than the kind of the status quo moving forward. And, you know, I just I think there's some confusion out there because there's a lot of numbers that are that are flying around on the on the Internet. I wanted to say, because I'm conscious of myself falling into this trap, etc., I think it's really important for us to remember that Mr. Watkins wasn't he was not only was he not doing anything wrong, but he was not in need of social services or help. And I think that's really important because I think sometimes as we talk about who is responding to whatever I'll say, we start getting into this. If only somebody who could address, who could de-escalate and address, you know, somebody who was having it was in need of social services and help and he was not. And I think that's a part of the systemic problem that we have, is that even, you know, in that situation, somehow somebody who was really not doing anything wrong ended up in the situation that he did. Like Mr. Bodie, I'll say that that that that that that that episode, that incident. Right. That tragedy went wrong from the second that phone call was made and where it was made to, because that that's the place that we as a council in a community of told people to call. I will just kind of I'm just going to state this and the city manager can clarify me if I say this wrong . We have already removed school school resource officers from our schools. That happened two weeks ago and they are not in this budget. So I just wanted to let people know who are demanding we remove the police from Alameda schools. That was done two weeks ago. So you can you can check that off on your success list. You know, the thing I have struggled as I have received all the emails from everybody, you know, which I appreciate the passion, I appreciate the ideas. We heard so many different ideas even here tonight from people who were speaking on the phone, whether it was mental health and after school care. They are teams of social workers, grocery cooperatives, etc.. Is that with this budget? It is. You know, I, I, I want to find a way to honor the need to explore these ideas and then address the budget needs without just assigning a number to, to produce a budget that will, you know, that won't necessarily have any impact. And and we're still going to have to go back in October, December, whenever, to to talk about it. So I you know, I've had an opportunity to talk with and listen to most of my colleagues because of the Brown Act and our open government role. So I think it's important for people who are listening in the meeting to know we can't talk about ideas as a group before tonight. This is the first time it's on the agenda. So, you know, when Councilmember Vela reached out and said, hey, you know, I'm trying to think about this, do you want to work on a on a proposed motion? We really tried to put something together that kind of answered what the community was asking us for, but also created space for, you know, the voice of the council that I mean, that I have heard come together in disparate places, because we can't all talk about about this around the idea that we need to be talking with each other. We need to identify what we want and how we're going to get there, etc.. And a commitment to do that work, a commitment to jump in and really go. I will also flag that tomorrow night's conversation is going to be a little stilted because of the agenda izing in the way it is. We have to be a little we aren't going to be able to go as broad as we want. And that's why tonight's motion proposed having another meeting in a week that allows us to have that even broader conversation and really start to set some goals and set some timelines so that we can make that commitment to the to the community so that tonight, even if we approve, as that motion recommends, the budget, we're making a commitment if we if we adopt this. We're not just making a commitment to don't worry, we'll do some work in in the in the future. We're actually saying we're going to meet in the next week and a half and we're going to set timelines and we're going to kind of hold off on some vacancies so that we don't accidentally go out and make decisions, hiring decisions, now that in October or November or next year we wish we hadn't made because we have other ideas of how to meet these needs. So, you know, I want to appreciate all of our city staff who have been working on this. I also I would like to you know, part of this motion is really I would like to you know, I think this council sets our policy direction, not just in policing, but the policy direction for the for the city. For the city. And I think that in our zeal as a city to be responsive, we have gotten ahead of ourselves a couple of times. And so I think that that I also hear the community wants to know, they want to have input. And I think that even when we're giving when we are responding to the community with what they want, we need to have that opportunity to have a public conversation about big changes and in in in, in, in policing. And so this motion also includes some direction to make sure that that is kind of clear and helpful. But anyway, I appreciate I just want to say I appreciate the entire council. I really have been proud of the way that every one of you has has stepped up and, you know, engaged with people and whatever else. And when people ask me how things are going, I say it's terrible. I can't believe we're even having to have this conversation. But I know that we have the team together that is committed to this conversation and to the community. You know, one of the things I'm going to be committing to personally and I'm hoping we can figure out a way to commit possibly the council is you know, I would like to see our city council, our staff, etc., really committing to some anti-racism training that that, you know, not just diversity training. You know, I see Councilmember Odie, you know, said, you know, is this the two middle aged white guys on the council, you know? You know, I think we need to be we need to be showing leadership in that. We need to step up in that. And it's going to be hard and it's going to be difficult and whatever else. But, you know, I want to I will make that commitment tonight for myself personally. So, anyway, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yes, Mayor. Let's see. Councilmember de so did you not pay the electricity bill this summer? Okay. Would you like to speak next?
Speaker 3: Well, great. Well, thank you very much. And thank you to all the residents who took the time this evening to participate in this important talk. And the fact of the matter is, is that any time we deal with the budget, whether it's a mid-cycle review or the two year budget, it's incredibly important because as I said earlier , the budget is really the reflection of what we as a community value. Um. It's it's sad that, you know, we're talking in this budget that what we're talking about is as a result of the tragedies in Minneapolis and more recently in Atlanta. And frankly, it's also sad what we're talking about in the budget this evening is because of the events that happened on Central Avenue on May 23rd. But here we are. All of these, whether nationally or locally, have moved people power in ways that frankly, I've never seen before. I was way too young in the 1960s, late 1960s. So I don't I didn't experience all the all the social changes and cultural changes that were going on then. But I have to believe that this has to be something like that. And to see the people mobilizing around specific agendas with regard to, say, how to improve policing nationally as well as locally, I think that really is democracy in action. But I think the thing to remember is also that while people power is important, especially in the sense of the type of ideas and concepts that are raised and that move and inspire people to want to make change. Ultimately, the democracy that occurs in out in Alameda as well as our United States is a democracy that occurs through the republic. And it is a republic in which individuals such as the five of us are elected to represent as best as we can. Your views and your concerns and your aspirations. And so in order to speak to the type of things that that move you to participate this evening, in order to speak to that to these issues as your elected representatives, we also have to, quite frankly, speak truthfully. We have to speak candidly and we have to speak honestly. So let me address some of the issues that were raised. And this is just going to be straight talk, because I think each of each of the council members on here, you know, that's what that's what ultimately we have to do. So on the issue of reducing the police budget by 40%, the straight talk, at least from from myself, is I don't support that. That's not going to happen. On the matter of improve, uh, improving funding towards mental health. Um, I think that is definitely an area that we in the city of Alameda can do even more substantively. I think we do little small things. We fund little programs and projects, and we spoke about that earlier this evening. Um, but I don't think we have a very articulated approach to dealing with mental health issues. Um, and I think we could do better in that regard. So I, as a councilmember, the things that I want to look towards in terms of models for mental health.
Speaker 2: I want to look at what, what our nearby.
Speaker 3: Cities are doing. Um, I know, for example, the city of Berkeley has its own public health department. I don't know if we're financially in a position to have our own public health department. But the point is, is a government that's near us has its own you know, does things that are slightly different than what most cities do . They have Berkeley has its own public health department. Or even more nearby. You see the city of Oakland. The city of Oakland has a department that's dedicated to race and equity. It is a standalone department that's dedicated to the issues of race and equity. So we kind of make sure to look at all the decisions and all the analysis that Oakland City Hall does through the lens of equity and and particularly at race and equity. And so they have a standalone department dedicated to that. So that's something different that we in the city of Alameda, we might not be 500,000 people like Oakland, but even a 79,000, 80,000 size city. We can do something like that. We can take a look at that. Oakland also has Department of Human Services. And I think what's neat about the Department of Human Services, I believe they have caseworkers, actual caseworkers who go out and meet families where they live, because I believe my significant other sister was a caseworker for the city of Oakland, and she would go into the neighborhoods near the Oakland Coliseum and meet her, her families. And so when we're talking about mental health and some kind of models, I mean, just speaking candidly, it looks like other cities near us are already doing that and we could certainly learn from that. So let's talk about another subject matter. So we've talked about mental health. We've talked about reducing the city police budget by 40%. Let's talk about, for example, military equipment that the city police has, because that's another one of the issues that you raised. And so what's my straight talk approach on that? My straight talk approach on the military equipment is I do think that the city police should keep the armored vehicles that we have now. We have it already. It's paid for. And you just never know when in some emergency situation, we don't need that anymore. However, I think the people that people are raising, the issue that people are raising about the militarization of the police force is a real issue. And so I think policy wise, we need to put in check going after the type of equipment that tend to militarize our police. Because, remember, the police force is essentially a civilian force. It is not a paramilitary force. So my straight talk answer on that is we're going to keep the equipment. But you're right. Going forward, I think we should demilitarize the police. If that involves looking at policies with regard to how tear gas is used, well, then let's do that. So those are the type of issues that you've raised and these are the type I'm trying to give you my straight talk responses to those issues. Um. I think there are other things that we can do with regard to, um, to improving our police force. Um, particularly with regard to our budget. Um, for example, I do think a large amount of dollars is indeed spent on police. And, you know, for those who went to college and you took Econ 101, you know, Econ one, one of you always talk about the the the concept of crowding out where if you spend so much money on military or that kind of stuff, that means money is there's less money available for positive things like social welfare programs . Well, it's the same thing locally, is that if we're spending so much money on our police and our and our fire, both of which get about 75% of our budget, more and more of that means that we're we're seeing less money available for other programs like Parks and Rec or for libraries. And the least unfortunate reality has been that the money has been increasing in public and and fire and safety and police. But we have not seen the same level of increase in and the other things that I think people also value. So I think we need to look at how we continue to apportion, um, our budget. And while I'm not advocating a 40% reduction in the police budget, nonetheless I think people are right in saying we're spending too much in that area. And so we need to have policies going forward that begins to take any kind of new revenues that are generated and dedicating those new revenues towards things that are.
Speaker 2: Not getting.
Speaker 3: Money, the money that they should be getting. And why is this important? This is important is because, for example, the current agreements that we have in place with our police and fire, the latest proposal, it's a labor agreement. It's it's how they get their raises. Every time there's a increase in the sales tax or a host of other taxes, the wages and salaries of police and fire had gone up. Well, what about, you know, money that that ought to get dedicated to recreation or the libraries?
Speaker 2: Well, it doesn't.
Speaker 3: Have that kind of same agreement. That labor agreement will soon come to an end. So I think as we contemplate what we want to do next with regard to the labor agreements that we put in place with police and fire, I think the concept that the Alameda has raised in terms of making sure to dedicate more money , more money to non-police, I think we need to remember that. So I just want to end by saying, um, this is where, uh, your democracy really takes hold right here in city hall on nights like this. Um, you and your colleagues and your friends across the country, if not locally, have been inspired to make change. But it's ultimately to us as your representatives, who has to implement some kinds of change. But in order to do our job well, we also need to speak candidly with you, candidly with you, as to the type of changes I believe are that can be implemented and not, frankly speaking. A 40% reduction in the police budget. Speaking of one member, one of five members of the council, I don't support that. We can have some other kind of reductions. Sure. But a 40% is just too drastic because remember, we also one of our charges as a city council is also to make sure that the city of Alameda is is safe and secure. And to that end, a police force is needed. Now, what we need to also do with our police force clearly is to provide them the type of training and training that's ongoing, that allows that keeps them abreast of, you know, how, you know, what are the issues, what are the cultural issues, what are the social issues? So that they're not always thinking of their job as just always, you know, putting handcuffs on people. But but they have a responsibility to the larger community to understand the concerns of people of color and people not of color. So I think tonight we've we've had a good start. We're going to adopt the budget, the cycle budget. And I think starting tomorrow, um, and the workshop that we have, we're going to have to begin implementing some different ways of doing things. So let me end by this, by saying this. You know, I've been in the city of Alameda since 1974, January 1974. That's many, many years. 46 years, I guess. 48 years. 46 years. And I would bet that for all those years, City Hall has more or less operated the same way that we always have. We've got police, we got fire, we got recreation, we got library. I believe that what more or less City Hall has been structured and organized more or less the way that it has always been. But clearly what has happened, not just on Central Avenue, but across the United States in response to Minneapolis as well as Atlanta. Clearly, this is a time for city hall here in Alameda to look at doing things differently. And if that means that we're going to copy some ideas from the city of Oakland, like their Department of Human Services or their race and equity department, or if it means that we're going to copy things like the city of Berkeley has, so be it. Because at the end of the day, there are other local governments who are also doing things differently, and we need to do that as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Desai and Councilmember Vela, you you started this off of your motion, but did you want to make your remarks?
Speaker 2: Sure. If you are. And then you'll go last one here. So. Well, I'm sure.
Speaker 1: I know my place.
Speaker 2: Yes. I just want to make sure that we hear from you. Okay. You know, I think as to echo my colleague's point, what I really want to just let people know is that we are listening. City Hall is listening. City Hall is present. And your city council members are spending time on this. We have been we've been out there with you. I have seen my colleagues at these demonstrations and marches to city hall. And it was it was really a sight to see, to see thousands of people participate and speak out. It's something that I never thought I would see. And especially based off of, you know, what the overall climate was like even four years ago here. And I think part of it is, you know, we have we have parents even marching with their their students. I've heard from parents who called me up to say, you know, what should we do to prepare for this action? I think people are, for a number of reasons, paying attention, listening and wanting change. And I think we really are in a place where where we can we can see that change through. And I think it's there's a lot of hard work that's going to go into it. But I'm ready to do that work with the community, with my colleagues. It needs to be a community led community involved. All of our stakeholders from the West End today farms and with a diversity of perspectives and view whether that's age, race , gender. I think that's really important. I also think that that ultimately the goal is about limiting police confrontation, especially for calls for service that are non-criminal, calls for service and for calls for service for nonviolent crimes. And what we saw in Atlanta was a call not at all related to a violent crime that resulted in a loss of life. And I think those are values that as human beings, we can all relate to. We can and we should be working towards. And I think we've seen our department start to go there with with the announcement of some policy changes in terms of responding. But we also have to address that those calls still come in and figure out how we're going to respond. And I think that that's where we're going to have to spend a lot of time and and put a lot of work in because we can't make assumptions about where CBOs will be able to do. We can't make assumptions about what different professionals are able, able to do. It's not as easy. I wish it were to say one for one. We're going to take for one officer and we're going to replace it with one social worker. We need to understand how the dispatching is going to occur, what sort of backup is needed, how many people we would need to staff that sort of unit. I want to do this right. I want to be thoughtful about this. I want this to really be transformative, change that lasts. I don't want this to be for one budget cycle. And so I think this is where these larger conversations have to happen. I think there's really four areas that we've I've seen identified. One is the policing policy and practice review. Well, whether it's demilitarization, use of force, de-escalation. Those those types of policies, unbundling services. I mean, this all started in the 1980s or even before the 1980s, that when we saw mental hospitals close, when we saw more and more work get piled into policing, where the one number you had to know was 911, and that's who you call if you have a problem. We've seen it with the curfew going into effect. Who do you call? You call the non-emergency number or you call the police department from everything from code enforcement violations all the way up. We have no one else to call. And that is so frustrating and we need to figure it out. And I think we will you know, we need to figure out what our priorities are. We need to figure out who responds, how they how they respond, what's involved in that, what does it cost and how the heck do we fund it? I think these are there's a lot packed in there. We need to talk about accountability and oversight. That's going to be a whole process in and of itself. What does that look like again? Who's involved? How do we facilitate it? I think there's there's a lot to to dove that could be a deep dove into that. And then the fourth category is really, I think overarching is beyond just our police department. It's beyond our city government, really. And it's it's to have a conversation about racism and to talk about not just implicit bias training, but to vice mayors, point to anti-racism training. And how do we how do we do this? Because since May 23rd, there's been another incident, not with our police, but there was an incident that occurred just a couple of blocks from my house on a street that I walk almost every day with my son, where we had an older white woman tell one of our black community members to go back to Oakland. You know, I mean, we have to have this conversation. It's beyond the walls of our police department. It is in the fabric of our community. We have to talk about it. We have to talk about how it affects our calls for service, how it affects our resources. What I don't want to see is our police department being weaponized against people of color, against black members of our community. I want to move away from that model, and I think we can do it. Alameda, to quote Mayor Ashcroft, has been Howard, who wisely four years ago said this. The great thing about Alameda is that we're we're big enough that we we we have staff that can get get things done. And we're small enough that we can do it as a community. And so, as you know, he did that well, he did. He said that relative to a different problem we were facing or our housing problem. But I think it applies here and I really do think that that's a good thing about our community, is that we can when when we need to we can come together and we can we can problem solve. So I look forward to that, to addressing these issues with with all of you. And I thank you all for your time and what I know will be a long march forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Vela. Councilman Brody.
Speaker 3: Since I know you wanted to go last, I just wanted to add a couple of final points. And since my colleague, Mr. DE So I've talked about Candide. I mean, I've heard where people are calling 911 and saying someone's dancing in the street and, you know, those type of things. It's just it's not appropriate. I mean, I don't know what the point of that is if it's to, you know, ridicule the dispatchers or if it's to. I just don't know what the motivation is. But the one thing I think we need to remember is that those. People that put on the name Alameda. You know, we may be upset at them for something, but, you know, there are city employees, too. Some of them are our neighbors. Some of them are our schoolmates. Some of them are our kids. Schoolmates, you know, some of them are there, our friends, kids. So as we make change, the police officers I've talked to want to be part of that change. And they they want that change. So, you know, there's going to be a report about the incident in May. But, you know, let's. Let's remember that the folks behind that badge are are people that, you know, they're a very diverse group of people. I was on a zoom call with them and the names and the and the colors. You know, it was it was diverse. So let's just try to remember that, you know, that there are people with families, too, and, you know, kind of just work together to solve this problem. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you for making those important remarks. All of your remarks have been wonderful, Counsel. But thank you, Councilman Brody, for bringing that up, because I, too, have heard that our dispatchers are being called and screamed at and called vile names. And, you know, if you think that you're speaking out for the cause of justice and you do it in that way, you're not. And and that that just isn't right. Because, remember, these same dispatchers also take 911 calls and and save lives on a daily basis. So let's practice the kind of compassion we're asking for in the community. Thank thank you for bringing that up. So I have said more than once in these last few weeks that and I think that my colleagues probably feel this way, that it is it is always an honor and a privilege.
Speaker 2: To serve.
Speaker 1: The residents of our city. It's an honor and a privilege to be the mayor. I feel it even more so. It's a daunting privilege. But we we have this moment, this opportunity to really show that we can take an adversity, you know, something that was a negative experience and find redemption in it and find strength and to move forward. And, you know, while I I wish I could just wave a magic wand and have the the incident of May 23rd not have happened, I think it's just as well that it did because, you know, and this was mentioned by one of the speakers that this was captured on a cell phone video. We first heard about it when there was a post on on Reddit, on a social media site, and followed by a cell phone video. And that's how it all came to light. And then as we started, the youth, you know, organized these marches. And as has been noted, thousands of people came out in the streets to protest. The vice mayor convened a town hall on Zoom, and there were more than more than 500 people because 500 was the max on zoom. But then it was streaming live on Facebook. So so people are you know, they're sitting at this really touched a nerve. But also we're hearing accounts from both youth and adults of color about the experiences they've had. And as Councilmember Odie noted, we were both at this one march and and I and I'm sure we all were just touched deeply by hearing the accounts of these young people. I mean by all of them, but especially young people having these these experiences, feeling fear and anxiety around the police just because of, you know, what either they or family members have experienced. And so I'm actually going to talk about this more tomorrow when we when our subject matter is how we can start to do things differently with our police policies. But I recently last night had an opportunity to sit down with some of these youth leaders. And in a remarkable facilitated discussion and I'll tell you more tomorrow about who are facilitators.
Speaker 2: Were I.
Speaker 1: Brought them over from Oakland but the the the young people they are amazing they they had so many good ideas and I have said this before and I'll share some of even more of their good ideas tomorrow. But they give me hope and they they call that all kinds of things. And this is where. So what I see is that I think, yes, this is a time where we can reallocate funding, police funding and Councilmember Vella hit the nail on the head because it is true that over the years, as these various programs have been cut because of financial and budgetary challenges, then it was, well, the police will do this. So, oh, mental health programs get the funding, call the police substance abuse, cut that program's funding, call the police homelessness, call the police. But and Councilmember Vella touched on this, too. You can't just make assumptions that it's going to be an equal one for one trait. For instance, I, I, we heard from the executive director of our West Alameda Business Association who said, yes, we we want these community officers rather than police officers coming because we have all these issues with homeless individuals. And I, i to favor a model similar to what Eugene, Oregon originated 31 years ago, where they have civilian teams of a crisis worker especially trained the crisis. Worker and a paramedic who go out to what turns out to be 20% of their 911 cause because they're mental health based and they don't carry a gun. They don't carry pepper spray or a taser, but they're specially trained to talk. And they they get people into into community programs that that exist for treatment. And that's all well and good. But we and I, I still think we should we should be following more that model. But we are part of a larger system. And right now in our county, we have a limited number of resources. So I cannot promise the Webster Street, the West Army, the Business Association, that we will clean up the homelessness problem. We are working on it. We are working on it in this city and we have put roofs over people's heads and we just approved in our CDBG item funding that is going to going to help more. But it doesn't happen overnight. It's slow, but I just see a lot of potential. So, um, and some of the things the young people talked about was better training for police officers that, you know, we've, we've learned that the police academy just trains you to be a police officer, but doesn't touch on things like ethnic studies. A number of them said police officers should be required to have ethnic studies, training. They should study civil rights, race relations. Someone said and I, I think I mean, so much of what they said was brilliant. But if you are a police officer in this city or in any city, you should know the history of your city's race relations. You should understand that. Rasheed Shabazz I'm looking at you to, um, to help fill that void. But no, there's, there's so many things that can be done and, and something that I think, um, I'd like this council to explore is akin to what the city of Berkeley was doing. And I can't even remember who mentioned the city of Berkeley, but one of you did, and they do have their own public health department. I'm not sure we can have our own public health department, but they have this mobile crisis outreach van that goes around and and makes calls. And and I've talked to the city manager this morning, and I was telling him this idea came up at this forum last night. And then I was talking to a resident of Berkeley and she was telling me a little bit more about it. And so I said, you know, I'd love to know. And I mean, I can text my friend, the mayor of Berkeley and say, you know, what does it cost? How do you find it and all this? But maybe there is some creative things we can do, like maybe partnering with the city of San Leandro next door, because I know they've wanted to do more mental health services. They've, you know, you've probably heard had a tragic police shooting at a Walmart, maybe a Walmart, an individual, you know, had mental health issues. And anyway, it ended very badly. And so there's I think there's a lot of things we can do with our budget, with changing policies. I think it's it's there's so much hope. There are other things that we cannot legislate. And and I know the incident Councilmember Vella was referring to because I saw it on social media, too. And last night when I was talking to the kids and this is so much of this made me sad, although I left hopeful then . But some of them talking about going into the store into targeted Alameda landing with their friends after school just to buy candy and then be hanging around and visiting. But the the crooks at Target thought, well, they're wearing backpacks and so they must be shoplifting and they call the police. And so now these nice young people don't want to go and hang out with their friends at Alameda Landing. And, you know, that's that's a nice space. There's just, you know, places to sit and just hang out. And so this is something that I think we all and not just us on the council, but our residents and our businesses. Because I have to say that sometimes I'll see reviews of local businesses and there are comments by people of color who have come in. And, you know, my facilitator, the facilitators who posted this last night, they they both grew up in Oakland and talked about the experience of coming to Alameda and having to be so careful, you know, going into stores at South Shore, for instance, and just being watched. You followed the whole time. And so these are things I mean, some of this is beyond what we can do to legislate. But I do feel that this we find ourselves in this is one of the things I said to the young. People that when there's large rallies, it sometimes it's hard to see in the moment when you're in the middle of a moment, a movement. But I truly believe that's what this is. This this is a historic moment that we find ourselves in. Alameda is swept along with what happened in in Minneapolis, what happened in Atlanta, what happened to Breonna Taylor and Omar Arbery and too many others. But but it has it has awakened something that I have never seen before. And I grew up in this city. I have never seen thousands of people come out into the streets. And and as a crowd that cuts across race, ethnicity, age generation. So I think we can seize this moment and be the inspired leaders that we want to be. So let's let's move forward with purpose. I think that's what we're doing. And I will say, I just I made this note because a couple of people said it in their remarks that, um, the Alameda City Council has shown that it is unwilling to address systemic racism, I think was the way it was phrased. And I would say, um, I respectfully disagree. I, we haven't had a chance until tonight to even meet, to have this conversation. We're meeting again tomorrow and then, um, if, and I believe we will pass the motion that is on the floor, we're going to meet again before the end of this month, which, by the way, is hustling to get the notices all that out. But we'll get it done. Um, that, that's, you know, we, we have to, that is part of the process. We, um, we operate within that. I still think we're moving in quite, quite fast. So with that, I don't mean to ramble on and on because the hour is growing late. But, um, thank you all for. For the energy you bring to the table. We, um, we can do great things working together, so let's get started tonight. So with that we've had a motion and it's been seconded. We've had lots of discussion. Shall we vote?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing that. It's okay. We'll take a roll call vote.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Jason Knox White. Hi. Yes, Vela. I may or as the Ashcroft. I that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 2: Yay.
Speaker 1: Good work, people. All right. So that is just know there's an agenda somewhere here, this messy desk. Um, that is the end of item six, but just the beginning of a larger conversation and plan of action. So. Thank you. Um, we're going to run really quickly for our next agenda items. I don't want to keep you up too late, because I want you to be fresh for tomorrow night's meeting. And Councilmember Val and I have a meeting. Even sooner than that, I'm co-chairing. Oh, yeah. Um, so we move on to item seven. City Manager Communication. Mr. Levitz?
Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the City of Alameda Operating and Capital Budget Mid-Cycle Update for Fiscal Year 2020-21; 
Adoption of Resolution Approving Workforce Changes and Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary Schedule Effective July 1, 2020; and 
Recommendation to Accept Report on Settlements Approved Between November 1, 2019 and May 1, 2020. (Finance 2410)