Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears proposal for a two‑year Office of Unincorporated Communities pilot, with debate over placement and scope
Summary
A proposed two‑person, two‑year pilot to coordinate county services for unincorporated communities — housed in the County Administrator’s Office using Measure W funds — drew broad community support but mixed responses from the Castro Valley MAC and some supervisors who debated CAO vs CDA placement and fiscal constraints.
A consultant’s report proposing a two‑year pilot to coordinate Alameda County services in unincorporated areas was the focus of the committee’s longest debate on May 27. Brianne Gala — contracted to research governance gaps — recommended a limited pilot to improve interdepartmental coordination, advance development‑review reforms and implement parts of the county’s Environmental Justice element.
Gala said unincorporated Alameda County serves about 150,000 people (roughly 8% of county population) and that residents often face a patchwork of agency communications and stalled cross‑departmental issues. Her updated recommendation: a 2‑person pilot located in the County Administrator’s Office (CAO), funded initially by Measure W allocations identified for an unincorporated manager. The pilot would focus on a narrow set of measurable initiatives and an evaluation framework so the Board could assess whether to scale up.
Supporters from neighborhood groups, local MACs and community organizations told the committee that the pilot could provide a single point of accountability and streamline residents’ ability to get county services. "Our communities deserve the same level of coordination and leadership that incorporated cities receive," said multiple speakers from MyEd and Voice, SLAM youth leaders and other community groups.
Castro Valley MAC representatives and a few residents urged caution or opposed the centralized model, arguing that the county’s problems also stem from organizational culture and that local governance models should not be overridden by a one‑size‑fits‑all function. Supervisors debated the tradeoffs: several favored CAO placement because it gives executive convening authority to coordinate departments; others said the Community Development Agency (CDA) could be more practical given its existing staff and program responsibilities.
Gala told supervisors she heard consistent findings across staff interviews and MAC meetings that coordination—and not just additional programs—is the core issue. She said the pilot would be iterative and that she would take the committee’s feedback to the Transportation & Planning committee and the Measure W allocation meeting the following week.
What’s next: The committee encouraged the presenter to refine placement and scope, requested clarity on Measure W allocations (the draft plan would come to the board next week), and asked for a final proposal that includes concrete deliverables, evaluation metrics and a two‑year budget plan. The committee did not vote on the pilot at the meeting.
