July 7, 2026
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the Alameda City Council:
Re: Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D – Proposed Charter Amendments and Ballot Measures
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers,
Alameda Citizens Task Force respectfully urges the Council to postpone consideration of Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D, and defer placing these measures before the voters until the City has provided a more deliberate, transparent, and legally defensible public process.
The Alameda City Charter is not an ordinary policy document. It functions as the City's constitution.
Amendments should therefore be considered only after the public has received clear notice of the specific changes under consideration and a meaningful opportunity to evaluate their legal and practical consequences.
Although the Council possesses the authority to propose Charter amendments, that authority carries a corresponding obligation to ensure that the legislative process satisfies the fundamental principles of transparency, informed public participation, and procedural fairness. When government proposes permanent structural changes to its governing framework, the public process should exceed the minimum legal requirements rather than merely satisfy them.
Several of the proposed Charter amendments appear to have developed through an accelerated internal staff process that has not afforded residents sufficient time to review the legal ramifications of each proposal. The agenda materials describe these measures as routine updates or administrative improvements, yet several provisions would substantially alter the allocation of governmental authority, public oversight, and voter protections. Characterizing significant structural revisions as "housekeeping" risks obscuring their true legal effect.
Moreover, presenting numerous Charter revisions simultaneously places an unreasonable burden on the electorate. Even if each proposal is individually lawful, the cumulative effect is to require voters to evaluate multiple fundamental governmental changes within a compressed timeframe. Sound public administration favors incremental reform supported by extensive public engagement rather than wholesale revision under ordinary legislative scheduling.
ACT is also concerned that the Council has not adequately demonstrated why these amendments require immediate placement on the November ballot. Charter amendments are intended to endure for decades.
A delay of several months to permit additional study, public workshops, and independent legal review would not prejudice the City's interests but would materially improve public confidence in the outcome.
From a legal perspective, California courts have long recognized that open government depends not only upon technical compliance with statutory notice requirements but also upon ensuring that citizens receive meaningful notice sufficient to understand the matters upon which their elected representatives intend to act. When significant governmental restructuring is proposed, transparency requires more than publication of agenda packets shortly before a meeting. It requires a process that genuinely facilitates informed civic participation.
Accordingly, Alameda Citizens Task Force respectfully requests that the Council:
1. Withdraw Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D from consideration at this time;
2. Direct the City Attorney to prepare a comprehensive legal analysis explaining the practical effect of each proposed Charter amendment;
3. Conduct a series of publicly noticed community workshops devoted exclusively to Charter reform;
4. Allow sufficient time for written public comment before any future vote to place Charter amendments on the ballot; and
5. Consider each substantive Charter amendment independently rather than as part of broader omnibus measures whenever practicable.
The legitimacy of our City's governing Charter depends as much upon the fairness of the amendment process as upon the substance of the amendments themselves. Alameda residents deserve an open, deliberate, and transparent process before being asked to approve permanent changes to the City's foundational governing document.
Respectfully submitted,
Alameda Citizens Task Force
From: Reyla Graber
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Do not approve Charter Changes Tuesday- please Date: Monday, July 6, 2026 6:07:17 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I disagree with your attempt to seek approval Tuesday of several ballot measures which would change our City Charter without adequate discussion or input from residents.Yes, it will be on the November ballot and still without adequate analysis or feedback from residents.
I don't believe this is good government practice, I'm shocked and I hope and trust it will not be approve
tomorrow evening.
Reyla Graber
Alameda Resident
From: Cathy Leong
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Meeting July 7 2026 Date: Monday, July 6, 2026 12:31:48 PM
Dear Alameda City Council,
As a 39-year resident of Alameda, I feel it is important to stay involved in our community and to speak up when issues arise. This is one of those times. On July 7, you will hold a meeting that includes several proposed Charter amendments which could permanently change how our city is governed. These are not small housekeeping changes—they affect how public money is spent, who provides oversight, and how decisions about public property are made.
7A: $300 Million Infrastructure Bond
You are considering a $300 million infrastructure bond—twice the size of the $150 million bond that voters rejected in 2024. That measure failed in part because its purpose wasn't specified clearly enough, and because residents wanted the money allocated to specific projects rather than a general fund.
The current proposal references projects like seawalls, fire stations, and roads, but it still doesn't clearly specify what gets funded first or provide binding guarantees on how the money will be prioritized. Before asking voters to approve an amount this large, residents deserve more detail about exactly where the money will go. As the saying goes, doing the same thing again and expecting a different result rarely works out.
7B: Bundling 18 Charter Amendments Into One Measure
This proposal combines 18 separate Charter amendments into a single ballot measure. Among the changes are the removal of current professional qualification requirements for serving on boards such as the Public Utilities Board and the Historical Advisory Board—including eliminating requirements that those boards include engineers, architects, and contractors.
Each amendment should be considered on its own merits. Bundling so many unrelated changes together makes it difficult for residents to evaluate—and vote on—each proposal individually. 7C: Changing the Rules for Public Land Deals
This proposal would lower the number of Council votes needed to approve land sales and long-term leases from four to three. It would also eliminate the current requirement for two public meetings, allowing these decisions to move forward after just one meeting and take effect immediately.
Public land belongs to all of us. Decisions involving city property deserve broad consensus and real opportunities for public input before they become final.
Alameda has always been a community that cares about good government and thoughtful decision- making. That's why it's so important to speak up now, on decisions that will shape our city's future.
Sincerely, Cathy Leong 48 Kara Road Alameda CA 94502
7-D: Eliminating Elected Financial Oversight (this I have already emailed you and Lara confirmed it was to be part of the record)
Cathy Leong <[email protected]>
to:
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,
Michele Pryor <[email protected]>,
Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,
Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>,
Greg Boller <[email protected]>
cc:
LARA WEISIGER <[email protected]
>
date: Jun 28, 2026, 8:43 AM
subject: Response in concern over Proposed Charter Amendment on 7/7 City Council Agenda July 5, 2026
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers Pryor, Boller, Daysog and Jensen, Re: July 7, 2026 City Council Meeting, Items 7-A, 7-B, 7-C and 7-D I appreciate the many hours of work that the City Council, staff, and commissions dedicate to serving
our
community.
The
decisions
before
you
regarding
the
proposed
Charter
amendments
are
among
the
most
significant
that
Alameda
residents
will
consider
in
many
years
.
Because
these
measures
could
permanently
change
how
our
city
is
governed,
I
respectfully
ask
that
you
vote
No
on
Agenda
Items
7-A,
7-B,
7-C,
and
7-D
,
and
postpone
these
items
that
require
additional
public
review.
Agenda Item 7-A — Proposed $300M Infrastructure Bond I support investing in Alameda’s infrastructure, but I do not believe the proposed bond measure provides
voters
with
sufficient
clarity
regarding
how
the
proceeds
would
be
allocated
or
prioritized.
A $300 million bond represents a substantial long-term financial commitment for Alameda taxpayers.
Before
asking
residents
to
approve
borrowing
of
this
magnitude,
the
City
should
present
a
clear,
detailed,
and
transparent
project
list
that
identifies
which
projects
will
be
funded
first,
the
estimated
costs
of
each
project,
and
the
criteria
that
will
be
used
to
allocate
the
funds.
If Alameda’s most pressing infrastructure needs are to be addressed, I believe the highest priorities
should
include
preparing
for
sea
level
rise
and
maintaining
the
city’s
existing
infrastructure,
particularly
repairing
deteriorating
sidewalks
and
potholes
throughout
our
neighborhoods.
These
are
fundamental
municipal
responsibilities
that
residents
experience
every
day.
Routine
maintenance
should
remain
a
priority
within
the
City’s
General
Fund
and
ongoing
capital
planning
rather
than
relying
primarily
on
broad
borrowing
authority
without
clearly
defined
spending
commitments.
Considering
the
Bay
Area
is
facing
a
housing
affordability
crisis,
the
proposed
bond
measure
would
also
put
further
financial
constraints
on
families
and
individuals,
including
renters
who
would
also
likely
see
an
increase
in
their
rents
as
a
result.
Voters deserve greater certainty before being asked to approve a bond of this size.
Agenda Item 7-B — Charter “Cleanup” Measure
I respectfully request that Item 7-B be removed from consideration at this time.
This proposal combines two repeals and nineteen separate Charter amendments into a single ballot
measure
despite
the
fact
that
many
of
the
proposed
changes
address
entirely
different
subjects.
Bundling
numerous
unrelated
amendments
together
makes
it
difficult
for
both
the
Council
and
the
public
to
thoughtfully
evaluate
each
proposal
on
its
own
merits.
Some of these changes, including modifications to qualification requirements for members of important
advisory
boards
and
commissions,
deserve
independent
public
discussion.
Alameda
benefits
from
having
qualified
professionals—including
engineers,
architects,
contractors,
and
subject
matter
experts
who
help
guide
decisions
affecting
our
infrastructure,
utilities,
and
historic
resources.
Each proposed Charter amendment should receive its own careful analysis and public debate rather
than
being
grouped
into
one
comprehensive
measure.
Separating
these
issues
would
promote
transparency,
encourage
informed
public
participation,
and
strengthen
confidence
in
the
process.
Agenda Item 7-C — Changes to Public Land Approval Requirements I respectfully urge the Council to vote No on this proposal.
Public lands belong to all Alameda residents. Decisions involving the sale or long-term lease of public
property
should
continue
to
require
broad
consensus.
The existing requirement of a supermajority vote and multiple public meetings provides an important
safeguard
that
encourages
transparency,
deliberation,
and
community
participation
before
irreversible
decisions
are
made.
Lowering
the
voting
threshold
while
reducing
opportunities
for
public
review
diminishes
those
protections.
Maintaining the current requirements helps ensure that significant decisions involving public assets
receive
broad
public
support
and
careful
consideration.
Agenda Item 7-D — Elimination of the Elected Auditor and Treasurer I respectfully request that this item also be removed from consideration.
Independent financial oversight is a cornerstone of good government. The elected Auditor and Treasurer
provide
accountability
directly
to
Alameda
voters
and
serve
as
important
checks
within
the
City’s
financial
management
structure.
While administrative efficiencies may be worth discussing, eliminating independently elected financial
oversight
raises
legitimate
concerns
about
transparency
and
accountability.
Independent
review
helps
reduce
the
risk
of
financial
errors,
conflicts
of
interest,
and
potential
fraud
while
strengthening
public
confidence
in
the
stewardship
of
taxpayer
dollars.
Before considering such a significant governance change, I believe the community deserves a comprehensive
public
discussion
evaluating
the
long-term
implications
and
possible
alternatives.
These proposed Charter amendments would permanently alter important aspects of Alameda’s government.
Changes
of
this
magnitude
should
proceed
only
after
robust
public
engagement,
careful
analysis,
and
broad
community
consensus.
I respectfully ask the Council to v ote No on all of these agenda items until each proposal has received
the
level
of
public
review
and
independent
evaluation
that
changes
to
our
City
Charter
deserve.
Thank you for your service to Alameda and for considering the views of residents who value transparency,
accountability,
and
thoughtful
governance.
Respectfully,
Carmen Reid
Alameda Resident
From: Steve Slauson
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objection to Regular Agenda Items 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D Date: Sunday, July 5, 2026 4:20:35 PM
Honorable Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Council Members Michele Pryor, Greg Boller, Tony Daysog, Tracy Jensen
I object to the Regular Agenda Items 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D as follows:
Item 7A is a $300 million bond with no information on the projects or needs for the projects explained.
Item 7B bundles numerous City Charter amendments into a single ballot measure preventing thoughtful individual consideration
of individual changes.
Item 7C appears in violation of Alameda’s Measure D
Item 7D proposes eliminating the elected positions of City auditor and City Treasurer, thereby removing independent financial
oversite.
I respectfully request these items be removed from the July 7, 2026 Regular Agenda and be placed on a future Regular Agenda with at least 90
Days allowed for full public review and participation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Slauson
2426 Otis Drive
Alameda
From: margie
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objections to items on the July 7 agenda Date: Sunday, July 5, 2026 2:55:00 PM
First of all, I object to consideration of major changes when many Alamedans are on vacation.
Specific objections:
I OBJECT to:
Item 7A ( $300 million bond) The bond is for "infrastructure," however, no specific projects are budgeted. The funds could be used for anything. Further, many homeowners in Alameda are seniors on fixed incomes. Additional property tax may be unaffordable.
Item 7B bundles numerous City Charter amendments into a single ballot measure. This approach forces voters into an all-or-nothing decision, preventing thoughtful consideration of individual changes.
Item 7C would make it easier for the City Council to approve the sale or lease of city property by allowing approval via simple majority resolution rather than a super majority ordinance. This change may weaken existing protections, including those established under Measure D.
Item 7D proposes eliminating the elected positions of City Auditor and Treasurer. This proposal, combined with the very vague proposal for a $300 million bond, is very problematic. I am in favor of independent oversight, not dependent on the approval of the Council.
From: Marian Breitbart
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Charter Amendments and Elected Treasurer and Auditor Positions- Council Item 7B and 7D Date: Saturday, July 4, 2026 5:39:52 PM
If the Council approves items 7C and 7D as presented, it will be extremely disappointing.
There does not seem to be a staff report explaining the rationale for these items. Clean up changes to the charter should be voted on separately for each major change.
So far as eliminating the Auditor and Treasurer as elected positions seems to follow the new federal model of minimizing or eliminating any independent oversight of the Council, Finance Director and budget. Is the reason to eliminate the relatively low costs of these positions or because they ask uncomfortable questions. These people were the only ones to identify and push for pension reform…a pressure point for most public entities that have been saved from catastrophe by atypically high investment returns over the past few years..
Please reconsider!
Thank you