Alameda council seeks voter input on infrastructure bond and possible public-safety tax as staff outlines collections and budget policy

Alameda city staff on Oct. 21 presented a fall budget update and asked the City Council for direction on potential revenue measures, improved collections, and a first citywide budget policy.

Communications Director Sarah Henry and Finance Director Ross McCarthy said one-time revenues—transfer taxes ($2.7 million over projections) and higher interest income ($3.3 million above estimates)—improved the city’s residual fund balance but do not solve long-term needs. McCarthy said sales tax has declined year over year by about $1.6 million, and staff continues to watch risks tied to federal funding changes.

“While stretched, the city is in a financially stable position,” McCarthy said, noting staff will keep projections conservative for FY26. Henry and Budget Manager Ecat Burton framed next steps as a combination of polling, prioritized projects and establishing a formal budget policy to lock in best practices on reserves and one-time revenue use.

The staff presentation highlighted an $800 million infrastructure need citywide and described an example polling scenario for a $150 million infrastructure bond that earlier materials estimated would cost roughly $29 per $100,000 of assessed value (example only). Staff also floated polling a separate public-safety parcel tax to test voter appetite for a measure that would support operating needs.

Council members questioned the framing and asked staff to include both infrastructure and a public-safety option in the poll. Council Member Desog asked whether a ballot measure should carry explicit fiscal-discipline commitments for city operations; Council Member Jensen urged inclusion of poll methodology that captures renters and homeowners as separate samples. Vice Mayor Prior emphasized the risk of escalating costs if repairs are deferred, citing needed sidewalk and public-safety facility upgrades.

Staff also asked for direction on a new billing and collections policy to recover roughly $1.4 million in outstanding receivables, including rent-program fees (about $470,000), code-enforcement invoices tied to sidewalk repairs and some pass-through traffic mitigation fees collected for regional partners. Public Works Director Erin Smith said the city’s pilot sidewalk program has about a 70% participation rate and that nonresponsive properties represent a small share of the dollar value but account for the majority of outstanding invoices.

Rent Program Director Bill Chapen said large nonpaying landlords account for a small share of units but a meaningful share of unpaid fees; staff has identified about 20 landlords owing at least $5,000 each—several have since paid and the number of outstanding sizable accounts has fallen to about 10.

Several council members supported polling that includes both measures and asked staff to return with a recommended poll design and proposed oversight language for any future ballot measure. The council also directed staff to develop the proposed billing-and-collections policy—using tools such as county tax liens, Franchise Tax Board intercept and referral to collection agencies where appropriate—and to return with formal budget-policy language for adoption.

What’s next: staff will proceed with a statistically valid poll (staff to return with methodology) and return with implementing steps for collections and a draft budget policy for council consideration.