The San Leandro City Council on Dec. 1 debated whether to continue exploring a possible November 2026 revenue measure and whether work tied to that effort — including polling and survey results — should be treated as confidential. Two related motions failed, leaving the city to revisit the issues at a later meeting.

Deputy City Manager Dustin Claussen and Finance Director Nicole Gonzales told council members the city is considering outreach ($20,000) and survey work ($92,000) to assess feasibility for a potential infrastructure- or public-safety-focused measure. Gonzales said the city’s preliminary, unaudited year-end figures show a projected ending general fund balance of about $69.6 million, and staff described the $92,000 as part of an existing contract that would not immediately change the shown fund balance.

Claussen summarized the staff request: council direction to either continue exploration — including a proposed consulting services agreement with Clifford Moss for outreach and survey work — or to cease efforts. He told council that a full program if pursued later could become more costly, and the initial $92,000 primarily covers polling and early outreach.

Public commenters were divided but many urged the council to act. Sarah Bailey, an online speaker, said voters would back a public-safety-and-roads measure and urged the city to “Use that money for a campaign that informs residents.” Douglas Spalding urged a narrower, city-led bond focused on firehouses. Jenny Madsen and others supported polling and public posting of results.

Council members pressed staff on the numbers and on risks. Council member Boldt cautioned that “we are taking down our reserves to do this,” and staff confirmed remaining reserves would be drawn down if the city fully executed the larger program. Council member Simon and others emphasized infrastructure needs, with Simon calling the city’s needs an investment rather than spending: “We really have to take care of our city.”

A separate, earlier agenda vote concerned a limited waiver of attorney-client privilege for a draft June 2024 community survey report. Deputy City Manager Eric Engelbart said that resolution would allow the release of a single draft document in response to a public records request. That motion (mover: Council member Viveiros Walton; second: Council member Bolt) failed, with the clerk announcing the tally as 3 yes, 2 abstentions and 1 no; the roll call read Simon — abstain; Mayor Gonzales — yes; Aguilar — abstain; Viveiros Walton — yes; Azevedo — no; Bolt — yes. The council indicated the item will be reconsidered at an upcoming meeting.

The central procedural flashpoint in the revenue-measure discussion was whether the city should treat future survey and consultant work as subject to attorney-client or deliberative-process privilege. City Manager cautioned that he was “extremely nervous to preemptively say something can't be under attorney-client privilege” because the council may need to discuss sensitive items in closed session. City Attorney Richard Pia Rota said contract language would define what is privileged, and that deliberative-process or work-product considerations could apply depending on the scope.

Other council members pushed for transparency. One council member argued directly, “I do not believe that a survey is covered by deliberative process privilege, period,” and said they could not support pursuing polling under a privilege that would keep results from the public. That divide surfaced during the motion by Council member Aguilar to continue exploration (including contracting with Clifford Moss) with the work to be subject to attorney-client privilege; the motion failed, with the clerk announcing the tally as 3 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention and Vice Mayor Bowen absent.

Council members said they will bring the items back for reconsideration at the next meeting to further clarify the scope and transparency of any polling, the contract terms, and what — if anything — would remain privileged. The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.

The council’s next steps are procedural: review contract language defining privilege scope, clarify what survey outputs would be public, and schedule reconsideration of both the earlier waiver request and the exploration motion.