Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public divided as supervisors postpone decision on $149,100 Measure D polling contract
Summary
After hours of public comment both for and against item 62 — a proposed $149,100 contract to survey residents and develop strategy around Measure D amendments — the board continued the item to a special meeting on June 4 and asked staff to attach missing procurement documents.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors deferred action on item 62 — a proposed $149,100 contract to survey residents and develop strategy and ballot framing related to Measure D — after several hours of sharply differing public comment.
Supporters from agricultural communities, including ranchers and growers, told the board polling is necessary to gather current public opinion and to determine whether Measure D needs updating to help agriculture remain viable. “Measure D affects whether families can remain on the land,” said Griffin B. Miller, who identified himself as a rancher and wine grower.
Opponents — from conservation groups, open‑space organizations, and residents — called the contract an improper use of public funds to underwrite what they described as polling and strategy that could lead to amendments removing voter protections. Mission Peak Conservancy, Sierra Club Tri‑Valley and others urged the board to reject the contract and instead reconvene a stakeholder working group. Critics also questioned procurement: speakers said the staff packet lacked the underlying RFP and contract documents and flagged that the solicitation used an informal procedure above the $100,000 informal threshold.
Board response and procedural outcome: Supervisors acknowledged both the policy and procurement concerns. Because the contract was not attached to the agenda and commenters requested more transparency, the board continued item 62 to a special meeting on Thursday, June 4, for further review; staff said the contract will be re‑posted with the missing materials before the hearing.
What remains unresolved: The core policy question — whether the county should spend taxpayer funds on polling and strategy related to a voter‑approved land‑use measure — remains contested. The board did not approve the contract on June 2 and will take up the matter on June 4.
