1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jennifer Ott, City Manager
Date: July 2, 2024
Supplemental Memo regarding: Adoption of Resolution Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Demand the Acquisition, Construction and Improvement of Municipal Improvement Projects Constituting Public Infrastructure of the City, and their Financing Through the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds; [Requires four affirmative votes] and Introduction of Uncodified Ordinance Ordering the Submission of a Proposition Incurring Bonded Indebtedness to the Qualified Voters of the City of Alameda at the General Municipal Election to Be Held on November 5, 2024, for the Purpose of Financing the Cost of the Acquisition, Construction and Improvement of Certain Municipal Improvement Projects Constituting Public Infrastructure of the City. [Requires four affirmative votes] This action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378 (b) (4). (City Manager 10021030)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This memo is being provided to supplement the staff report already published for the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting.
If the Resolution determining the public interest for a General Obligation Bond is adopted tonight, City staff will return to the City Council at its July 16, 2024 meeting with the attached presentation that includes the results of the opinion poll and the attached draft ballot language. While this information is not included in the staff report for the July 2 City Council meeting, City staff believe it may be of interest to the Council and community members in consideration of tonight’s agenda item.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Henry, Communications Director
Exhibits:
1. Alameda Bond Measure Tracking Poll Analysis Presentation
2. Alameda Bond Measure Draft Ballot Language
Updating Alameda Voter Views
of a Potential Bond Measure
Key Findings of a Survey Conducted June 5-16, 2024
220-7265
DRAFT
Exhibit 1
2 Dates June 5-16, 2024
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2024 Voters in Alameda Total Interviews 442
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level (Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
Survey Tracking 2008, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2023 Surveys Languages English, Spanish and Chinese
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
Survey Methodology
3 Voter Mood and
Perceptions of the City
4 Post-pandemic, voters continue to have
more mixed views of life in Alameda.
Q1.
61% 59% 57% 55%
42%
31% 33%
29%
22% 22% 25% 28%
21% 24%
17%
26%
9% 10% 11% 10%
27%
37%
45%
37%
8% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 5% 8%
2008 2015 2017 2018 2020 2022 2023 2024
Right Direction Wrong Track Mixed Don't Know
Would you say that things in the City of Alameda are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track? 5 Majorities approve of the job city government is
doing, though few hold strong opinions.
Q2.
I am going to read you a brief list of public officials and agencies.
Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the job each is doing. 11%
13%
12%
45%
39%
34%
12%
16%
17%
20%
21%
23%
11%
11%
14%
Alameda City government, overall
Alameda City management
Alameda Mayor and City Council
Strng. App. Smwt. App. Don't Know Smwt. Disapp. Strng. Disapp. Total App.
Total
Disapp.
56% 32%
52% 32%
46% 37%
6 These numbers have generally
held steady in recent years.
Q2. I am going to read you a brief list of public officials and agencies. Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the job each is doing.
Public Official/Agency
Total Approve
2017 2018 2020 2022 2023 2024 Difference
(2023-2024)
Alameda City government,
overall 64% 60% 61% 58% 59% 56% -3%
Alameda City management 59% 54% 54% 50% 55% 52% -3%
Alameda Mayor and
City Council 58% 51% 52% 48% 51% 46% -5%
7 Impressions about the City’s infrastructure
funding needs have increased since last year.
Q5.
Would you say that to maintain and improve public infrastructure the City of Alameda has a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funding? 17%
36%
17%
13%
17%
Great need
Some need
A little need
No real need
Don’t know
25%
39%
14%
11%
12%
A Little/No
Real Need
29%
Great/
Some Need
54%
A Little/No
Real Need
24%
Great/
Some Need
64%
2023 2024
8 Views of a Bond Measure
9 Hypothetical Ballot Language
Q3. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? City of Alameda Infrastructure Repair/Flood Safety Measure.
To prevent flooding of tubes/shorelines/Bay Farm Island; address sea-level rise; upgrade bridges to withstand major earthquakes; repave streets to prevent deterioration;
repair potholes/sidewalks; improve traffic flow/safety for people who walk/bike, shall the City of Alameda measure issuing $150,000,000 in bonds with an average levy of $29 per $100,000 of assessed value, generating approximately $19,500,000 annually while bonds are outstanding, requiring public disclosure/ independent audits, be adopted?
(Two-thirds Vote Threshold)
10 Initial support—based only on the hypothetical
ballot language—is right at two-thirds.
Q3. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? 39%
23%
6%
2%
7%
16%
8%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
24%
Total
Yes
68%
62%
without
“leaners”
11 Support is higher than for
prior versions tested last year.
60%
68%
56% Broad-based Infrastructure
Repair $150MM Bond
Safety, Emergency, and Climate
Emphasis $150MM Bond
Infrastructure Repair and Flood
Safety $150MM Bond
2023
2024
12 Q4a.
Many rationales for support mentioned
roads or were more general in nature.
In a few words of your own, why did you vote YES on this measure? 37%
31%
14%
12%
9%
9%
8%
6%
1%
2%
Infrastructure/upgrades/roads
Important/necessary/needed
General safety/public safety
Climate change/sea level rise/environment
General positive/good idea
Better for the community/investments in the city
Flooding/increasing flood risk
Other
Don't know/Unsure
Refused/No comment
(Open-ended; Asked of Yes Voters Only, n=300)
13 In a few words of your own, why did you vote NO on this measure? Opposing rationales focused on perceived financial
mismanagement and objections to taxes/bond costs.
Q4b.
34%
30%
21%
9%
7%
6%
5%
5%
7%
1%
Current budget mismanagement/wasteful spending
No more taxes/oppose tax increase
Costly/expensive
Alternative funding source/oppose bond measures
More important issues
Prefer simplified measure/too much included
Need more information
Unnecessary/not needed
Other
Refused/No comment
(Open-ended; Asked of No Voters Only, n=108)
14 Support intensified after positives,
but fell below two-thirds after criticisms.
Q3, Q8 & Q10. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? 39%
46%
33%
23%
20%
25%
6% 8%
10%
11%
7%
7%
6%
16%
12%
17%
Initial Vote
After Positive Messaging
After Positives and Critiques
Def. Yes Prob. Yes Und., Lean Yes Undecided Und., Lean No Prob. No Def. No Total Yes
Total
No
68% 24%
69% 21%
63% 26%
15 Spending and
Investment Priorities
16 Ext./Very
Impt.
79%
78%
77%
76%
70%
70%
70%
68%
68%
68%
Preparing for earthquakes and flooding—and
fixing potholes—are top investment priorities.
Q6. ^Not Part of Split Sample
I am going to read you a list of ways in which any additional funding provided to the City of Alameda could be spent. Please tell me how important each project or element would be to you personally:
extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. 41%
42%
39%
46%
40%
32%
32%
39%
39%
23%
38%
37%
37%
31%
30%
39%
37%
29%
29%
45%
15%
15%
18%
16%
15%
21%
23%
18%
20%
25%
5%
6%
5%
5%
12%
8%
5%
11%
9%
^Upgrading bridges to withstand major earthquakes
Protecting natural areas along shorelines to help
prevent flooding
^Repairing potholes
^Preventing flooding in the Tubes
Addressing climate change impacts,
including sea-level rise
^Repaving city streets to prevent deterioration
Keeping pollution from the Bay
^Providing safe routes to school
Requiring public disclosure
Repairing and upgrading City infrastructure
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know 17 37%
36%
23%
29%
20%
31%
28%
26%
14%
15%
29%
25%
36%
28%
32%
20%
22%
24%
28%
26%
19%
24%
30%
16%
31%
19%
31%
29%
28%
31%
13%
14%
9%
18%
14%
26%
13%
14%
27%
23%
9%
6%
7%
^Installing infrastructure that improves traffic flow
and reduces congestion
^Improving safety for people who walk or bike
^Repairing deteriorating sidewalks
^Upgrading City buildings to meet current
earthquake safety standards
Providing public infrastructure to support new
affordable housing such as sewer and water lines
Requiring annual audits
Preventing flooding of Bay Farm Island
^Building a new City Animal Shelter to replace the
current overcrowded and deteriorating shelter
Moving more utilities underground
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Ext./Very Impt.
66%
61%
59%
57%
52%
51%
50%
50%
42%
41%
Moving utilities underground and building a
new animal shelter were lower-tier priorities.
Q6. I am going to read you a list of ways in which any additional funding provided to the City of Alameda could be spent. Please tell me how important each project or element would be to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample Building a living shoreline instead of a concrete
seawall to protect the coastal edge and help
prevent flooding
18 Supportive and Critical
Statements
19 Q7. I am going to read you statements of supporters of this potential bond measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support this measure on a future ballot. *Split Sample 43%
40%
39%
30%
29%
29%
24%
33%
41%
43%
44%
40%
38%
43%
76%
80%
82%
74%
68%
67%
67%
Sea-level Rise
Earthquake
*Traffic
*Streets
Accountability
Alameda Vision
Parks
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
Similar rationales were the most compelling, as well as addressing local traffic and pedestrian safety.
20 Statements in Support of a Bond Measure
Q7. I am going to read you statements of supporters of this potential bond measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support this measure on a future ballot. *Split Sample Ranked by Very Convincing
(SEA-LEVEL RISE) With the sea-level steadily rising around Alameda and increasingly severe winter storms, it is absolutely critical for the future of our city to plan accordingly. We need this measure to fund projects along our shorelines and in the Tubes to protect our streets, homes, and businesses from storm surges and flooding.
(EARTHQUAKE) Our city's infrastructure, including bridges, is aging and does not meet current earthquake safety standards. This measure would provide the funding needed to ensure that our community is prepared for the next major earthquake.
*(TRAFFIC) This measure will invest in upgrading our roads and sidewalks to ensure that people can get where they need to go quickly and safely — whether they drive, walk, or bike.
That includes investments in pothole repairs; safe routes to school; sidewalk repairs for people with disabilities, seniors, and families; and improvements to signal timing to break up traffic bottlenecks.
*(STREETS) Roads and neighborhood streets across Alameda are in need of repairs and improvements — 29% are currently rated as "poor" or "failed." This measure will help fix potholes and repave streets - making preventative road repairs before they become more costly. (ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will be subject to tough fiscal accountability requirements, including full public review of all spending and independent financial audits, to ensure that the money is spent consistent with community priorities.
(ALAMEDA VISION) Our high quality of life comes from things like our safe streets and neighborhoods; plentiful parks and open spaces; and vibrant, local business districts.
This measure is a critical part of a longer-term vision for Alameda that will help maintain the critical infrastructure needed to support robust and sustainable city services. (PARKS) Alameda's 21 community and neighborhood parks are an important part of what makes living here special. This measure will help repair and upgrade our parks and playgrounds, so they remain safe and clean for our residents to enjoy.
21 The most compelling criticism centered on raising
taxes during a time of an increasing cost of living.
Q9. I am going to read you statements of opponents of this potential bond measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose this measure on a future ballot. 30%
29%
26%
25%
31%
25%
31%
30%
61%
54%
57%
55%
Cost of Living
Growth
Mismanagement
Wrong Things
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
22 Statements Opposing a Bond Measure
Q9. I am going to read you statements of opponents of this potential bond measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose this measure on a future ballot.
Ranked by Very Convincing
(COST OF LIVING) The cost of living and inflation in the Bay Area is out of control, with many families and seniors being priced out of our community by the cost of rent and other basic needs. We simply can't afford to raise taxes and make it even more expensive to live here.
(GROWTH) By creating the infrastructure to support even more high-density housing, this measure will bring more people to Alameda. Our city streets, Tubes, and bridges are already snarled with traffic. The last thing we need is to spend taxpayer dollars to make the situation worse.
(MISMANAGEMENT) None of the infrastructure needs should come as a surprise to the city. They should have been planning for them and setting aside funds for years.
We don't need to raise taxes again and allow bureaucrats and politicians to fund their pet projects.
(WRONG THINGS) This measure claims to be about earthquake and traffic safety, but the City plans to spend most of the money building brand new buildings for city workers. We're struggling with homelessness, housing costs, and crime — now is the wrong time for this measure.
23 Climate scientists and environmental engineers
are seen as particularly credible voices on a bond.
Q11 a-e, g-l. I'm going to mention a list of individuals and organizations that may take a position on the ballot measure that we have been discussing. Please tell me if you feel that individual or organization would be very believable, somewhat believable, not too believable, or not at all believable if they spoke out on this measure. If you have never heard of an individual or organization, or if you don’t have an opinion, please tell me that instead. *Split Sample 46%
40%
25%
28%
27%
29%
23%
19%
7%
11%
9%
38%
36%
46%
40%
38%
35%
35%
38%
41%
34%
34%
10%
5%
7%
7%
6%
9%
10%
10%
7%
11%
11%
15%
7%
12%
16%
15%
12%
16%
16%
20%
23%
25%
27%
5%
10%
14%
9%
6%
17%
16%
15%
14%
*Climate scientists
*Environmental engineer
*Local small business owners
Local teachers
*Local firefighters
Save the Bay
*Local police officers
Your Alameda City Councilmember
Local taxpayer groups
*Alameda Chamber of Commerce
Very Bel. Smwt. Bel. Never Heard of No Opin./Don't Know Not Too Bel. Not at All Bel. Total Believ.
Total Not
Believ.
84% 11%
76% 15%
71% 22%
68% 25%
65% 26%
64% 25%
58% 22%
56% 37%
48% 39%
44% 40%
42% 41%
Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter,
also knows as FAAS
24 Conclusions
25 Conclusions – Electoral Context
• Voters have settled into a state of mind where the overall electorate is less optimistic about Alameda’s future than it was pre-pandemic.
• Impressions of various levels of city government are
generally positive, but also not quite as positive as they were pre-pandemic.
• There is an elevated perception that the City needs
additional funding for public infrastructure, though slightly less than two-thirds hold that impression and it is not acutely felt.
26 Conclusions – Bond Measure Viability
• Support for a $150MM infrastructure bond—with an emphasis on flood safety—appears to be hovering around its two-thirds vote threshold. • Earthquake safety and street repairs/safety improvements also appear to resonate strongly.
• Support is higher than observed at the end of 2023.
• However, a ceiling of support doesn’t appear to be much higher than the two-thirds threshold, and eclipsing that threshold requires the support of a handful of tentative “yes” voters.
• Were ACA 10 to pass—and apply to infrastructure bond measures as appears to be the case—viability at 55% vote threshold would look good for November, assuming the macro electoral and economic environment holds steady.
• In the absence of that certainty, a measure may very well still be viable, though it would have little margin for error and would require the emergence of a strong supportive effort from the community.
For more information,
contact:
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Curt Below
[email protected]
Miranda Everitt
[email protected]
July 2, 2024
Draft GO Bond Ballot Language
City of Alameda Infrastructure Repair/ Flood Safety
Measure. To prevent flooding of tubes/ shorelines/ Bay
Farm Island; address sea-level rise; upgrade bridges/
facilities to withstand major earthquakes/ meet current standards; repave streets to prevent deterioration; repair potholes/ sidewalks; improve traffic flow/ safety for
walkers/ bicyclists, shall the City of Alameda measure
issuing $150,000,000 in bonds with an average levy of
$29 per $100,000 of assessed value, generating
approximately $9,500,000 annually while bonds are
outstanding, requiring public disclosure/ independent
audits, be adopted?
YES
_____
NO
______
Exhibit 2