Recommendation to Assign a Portion of the $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. (City Manager 10021030/Finance 10024051)
So with that, we'll say next slide, please, and thank you. The interim final rule is really what guides the the elements that are eligible for the that the spending. There are there are some pretty big buckets there. We did using the interim final rule, using the the guiding principles, using the city council priorities that had been established in those kind of general topic areas. We did come up with three recommendations or a recommendation and two alternatives. These are for discussion purposes. We still really are at the early stages. There's time to refine and make changes to this program. Overall, we've heard five as recently as today from the Housing Authority and it's clear that we need to have some additional conversation with that group. The options that have been presented will likely will likely generate they're the kinds of projects that will likely have a blend of funding sources. And so I'm mentioning that because the the way that the staff report is structured, it's 100% ARPA funding for each of these topic areas. So for example, the Marina Village project, if we were to move forward with that and it's a little bit of a webbed agenda here this evening with closed session, the prior the prior item that was discussed as six a and now this item. But if we were to move forward with the Marina Village Hotel project or motel project and conversion, there would likely be a series of funding sources or a number of funding sources that would develop that project. This report looks at it as if ARPA was 100% of the funding source. So the reason I'm mentioning this is that with any alternative that we or any projects that we move forward with, we're likely to be checking in with council every 3 to 6 months. As projects firm up and spending starts, we'll be able to better assess the amount of ARPA funding that's remaining on the table. So I'll say next slide and we can talk more about that maybe during the Q&A. So the requests that are in the report total a little over $51 million. And they're in those kind of four broad topic areas that that I discussed earlier. Next slide. The staff recommendation focused on, I'll call it, spreading the wealth, but spending kind of creating a program that was within the means provided by ARPA. So it's about $28 million. The first year or two is about $14 million, which is what we have in our first tranche. And this really allowed us to hit the ground running on some of the supportive transitional housing options that are available. I was listening loud and clear to the conversation earlier this evening and recognize that this recommendation may need to be adjusted. But that was the rationale behind the staff recommendation. These are properties that the city owned that we had the ability to move on quite quickly and actually start to spend money in the in the next year . So with that, I'll move on to the alternatives because, well, I think it's important to based on the prior discussion this evening here, those as well. Next slide, please. So we had some housing proposals. These these did look at going all in on housing, including both transitional and hotel. Again, with a blend of funding sources, we could likely get the the $28 million of ARPA to go the distance and actually probably even be able to fund other options that are not considered in this option. Next slide. This this is the opposite flip of the switch where we did not focus on housing, but focused on things like broadband, small business support and and creating those kinds of lending hotspots and other technology support for for members of the community. It applies the same a similar equity lens. What we learned and saw loud and clear during the pandemic is that not having access to Internet for certain populations was particularly difficult. And it created challenges that that we we likely could have foreseen had we had we predicted the pandemic but are really important to address moving forward. Next slide. So if that this is this is a point in time where we have an opportunity over the next essentially three and a little bit years to to program our ARPA spending. And we have about four and a half to five years to spend these dollars. So this is our first attempt at identifying some priority projects. There'll be a lot more discussion. We want to be accountable and transparent to the community, so we will be reporting back regularly on how the money is spent. And so with that, we'd like to hear counsel's direction and on the guiding principles that are included in the report. And if there's anything else you'd like us to associate with those so we can use those moving forward. And then if there are projects that we want to that we want to start to move forward on at this point in time relative to the overall ARPA investment, that would be great. So with that, I'll conclude staff's recommendation and our presentation and we'll move on to questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Nice report. And madam, click, do we have public speakers on this item? You do not. Oh, now we have one. Okay, well, we will have any clarifying questions from council, and then we'll hear our public speaker. Or maybe there might be more than one council member next. But if you can say your hand up. Yes. Thank you. And thank you for the thorough report. For the revenue loss proposal. Does the current budget that the Council adopt adopted include $8 million in revenue loss, or would that be that would be new funding not not considered in the correct. And we would bring that back as part of either midyear or mid-cycle update, depending on when the actions occur, when the directions received. Or sooner, if that's if that's possible. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other clarifying questions before we get our public comment or comments? Okay. Madam Kirk, you're going to call the first speaker or the only speaker when you've got two. Right? Three. First is Josh Dyer. Good evening, Speaker Dyer. I can living you. So I am a member of a recent member of a really great group here in Olmedo called Transform Alameda. And we some of us along with us the Alameda Justice Alliance and Renewed Hope and an ARC and other groups have the opportunity to meet with you. We appreciate that to talk about your thoughts and our thoughts on how to use these ARPA funds. And we are also glad for the opportunity to share our kind of more developed proposal with you. So I just wanted to for those who had other people who may be listening, what kind of briefly what our ideas are that so transform. Alameda believes that the city of Alameda has a once in a generation opportunity here to use its ARPA funds to establish comprehensive, integrated public services that are fundamental. We feel for a safe, healthy and thriving community. AMO is created in response to this terrible public health and economic crisis that has, as we all know, impacted the poor and the marginalized more so even than than others. The goal of ARPA is to lift up members of our community in a way that supports and sustains well-being in this unprecedented infusion of federal funds should be used in that spirit, we transform Alameda. We propose that the city use these other funds directly to address our communities in interconnected needs and struggles, specifically around housing, mental health, economic security and climate vulnerability. We realize, obviously, that not not all of you think these things can be fully addressed with this one funding source. But we think that this is these are the lenses through which we should be looking at how to spend these moneys and minds in the future to provide the fundamentals for a functioning community. So for housing, we really strongly support the Rainy Village in project. We also would like to the City Council to consider looking to fund a community land trust or some other sort of thing to preserve housing, look ownership here. We love the idea of a mental health clinic that could potentially be housed in a park in a part of the hospital that's being underused right now. We'd love to see a a a resilience hub on the east and or central part of the island in order to when it inevitably gets very hot, we can have people have access to cooling in other parts of the island. And finally, we're really interested in a UBI pilot that fits Alameda specific needs. So I'll stop there. Thanks very much. Thank you. Our next speaker. Laura Thomas. Good evening, Speaker Thomas. Living there. It's nice to speak to you again. And you and the entire council I standing in for renewed hope advocates here and to say that we stand in full support of those priorities that were listed in the letter. And I think you got a letter from me today to that effect. And I'm really happy to hear Josh talk before me because he pretty much put out all those priorities that we talked with you yesterday. I just want to say in general that I think this notion of community resilience is going to be very, very important in the years to come. I just think cities and towns everywhere and their leaders are going to be called to more and more to help the residents survive those natural disasters and a certain amount of social upheaval, as we can see from what came down just with COVID. And I think the the loss of workers, the fact that we don't have workers in our restaurants and our businesses is really has made us less resilient in the last year. I think that's it's really unfortunate and it's something we're we're going to be looking at with if we follow these priorities through, I think our survival will depend on making sure that we all help one another and and erase that divide between the haves and have nots that seems to be growing, especially in the Bay Area. And all of these proposals really speak to values that we hold and renewed hope and we hold them in the Alameda Justice Alliance. And I think we actually many people in this community that have marched just in the last year to see past injustices remedied also hold these values. Everybody wants to see us move towards the care of the entire community. And when we do move to care for the community, I think we're actually going to have that safe and secure community everybody really wants. So I thank you for your attention. I think these priorities are very important and renewed, hopefully supports them. Thank you. Our next speaker. Nancy Schmidt. Good evening. Speaker Schmidt. I thank you. I really appreciate your proposals here and the discussion completely and wholeheartedly agree. I did want to make sure that we come up with some kind of community criteria that does reflect our values when it comes to social justice and equity, and that if there is a way that we could measure how these dollars are being spent and identify kind of almost a scoring mechanism, if we could, the reason being that one is this is a once in a lifetime opportunity and every penny that we get really needs to be spent to the best possible use and to have the most effect for the most people. So many are in need. And I I'm just curious because there had been discussions earlier in the previous agenda item discussing looking at different housing options. Kind of when it comes to cost effectiveness, but also impact, what's the impact going to be? And are there ways that we can look at the impact of those dollars and not just simply looking at how much they cost and what those alternatives are, but to really look at the social impact, the equity impact, and then also how it reflects our values so that we if we were to give a report card back to the community of Alameda, what would that report card say as far as how we chose to decide to spend those dollars? Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. That was our last speaker. Okay. So with that, I'm going to close public comment. And, you know, Mr. President, if I could just ask you, we've been on a couple of webinars together about our refunds, and I think you've probably been on even more. To just give the listeners an overview of the the reporting requirements, how strict it is to adhere to the. The. The the structure, the requirements of this funding opportunity. Sure. And I'm going to I'm going to invite Andy and Jennifer into the conversation, if that's okay with you as well. But the the reporting where it's frequent, we have to be updating the federal government regularly on the use of our funds. And he sent a calendar which I don't have in front of me right now, but I think she's looking for it. I think it's every three months or so that we are we're required to report. And really, the thing that's been stressed by all of the folks from the federal government who've talked with with city officials, is the the importance of of adhering to the to the the the eligible project list and making sure that there is accountability for the dollars that are spent so that the federal program doesn't have there's no ability to. It's beyond reproach. The idea is that these are these are an investment in your community. And they they we are ensuring that we are taking good care of the public dollar as we're investing in the community. And so any we'll have a lot more detail on the the report, the actual reporting requirements and frequency. But the overall intent is to make sure that local governments are doing their their very best to be transparent with the community and investing in a way that's consistent with the interim final rule from the U.S. Department of Treasury. Thank you. And Ms.. Two, what would you add to that? Yes, Jason, very comprehensive. Before you go, I know. I apologize for interrupting. I'm hearing a lot of static, as are others, too. Yes, it's very garbled. Any suggestions this way? I figure. I do have a headset and I can share my screen with that. One. You seen the screen? Yeah. Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so this is on the calendar. These are the operating dates is pretty much the first day is August 31st with interim report. And then there's a lot of strict requirements on a quarterly basis. By October 31st, we'll have to complete our second and third quarter. And every quarter we have to some. Points maybe. You can call in. And actually, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think this is probably deeper information than I really need. I suffice it to say, there are strict reporting requirements that the city will have to adhere to. But I think I wanted sort of the overview so far. So thank you both very much. And yeah, we we will have to figure out what the audio challenge was there. Council questions, comments, your recommendations, who would like to start? Councilmember Knox White thinks so. I think I really appreciate coming back with three different concepts. You know, for the most part, I do. I'm fairly supportive of the of the housing proposal. I do. I would I would be open to considering some form of you know, I would say say hybrid that had a little bit of business assistance. But for me, business assistance is not grants to businesses, but thinking about things that again, one time, one time funds that could actually go to rebuilding the resilience of our of our business areas, specifically downtown and in Webster Street. So whether that's ways in which to kind of make permanent some of the some of the things that we put in that are attracting people to our downtowns in order to in order to strengthen the local economy, those kinds of things. The reason I asked about the budget, I think that if we were to put some of this into revenue loss and then we would have the flexibility to use that on projects we wanted to use. That would be the about the only way that I would be willing to consider revenue loss in this. I don't want to just see it as kind of backfilling things we've already actually dealt with in the budget. It's not to say that we didn't have pinches in the budget, but I really appreciated that what the first principle of one time only costs. But for the most part, I think your housing only proposal as it links up with item, our conversation around item six eight is probably the most impactful. I do agree with the this is a one time opportunity. Let's see and let's use it to to, you know, have some ongoing and strong future outcomes that we can look back and say we didn't we didn't squander this and just throw around 5000 here and 5000 there and wonder what happened with all the money. So thank you. It's a great, great, great work. Thank you, Councilmember. Now it's like Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. Mayor, and thank you staff for this very comprehensive report. I am concerned about dedicating the 20 plus million dollars out of this 28 million for the purchase of the hotel. For me, I'd like to actually spread this as much as possible to impact as many people as possible that really have, I think, been greatly impacted and left out that the Internet, smart city, wireless hotspot service, wireless hotspots. I think that those are critical. This this gap of the digital gap, I think now we're having an opportunity to close it. And as we all know, we're having a meeting right now online that many people cannot access. They haven't been able to apply for honestly supports. They haven't been able to. All of the students trying to study this really been a hardship. They've been left out of our society for a year and a half now. So for me, that's actually a very high priority. I also noticed in. Exhibit five that. There's just comments in regards to your possibilities to support public health, support for isolation, quarantine, vulnerable populations to medical and public health services. I think that that's actually a very, very important to try to figure out how people that are vulnerable, when they're impacted from COVID, how how do they exist, they need help. So I think that that does meet the needs. The assistance to households. That was another thing on exhibit five, food, rent, mortgage, utility, legal aid, cash assistance, things like that, as well as new and expanded child care. I think those types of services that cover low income, lots of people that are very vulnerable. I think that that's a very good use of this money and I'm really concerned when we're talking about dedicating, I think it'd be like 4/5 of the money to one project. It would impact maybe 50 people versus I'm going to just thousands of people that are have been left behind. And I think we have to really think the medical especially, you know, so those things that I've just said, I'd like to see us to consider. Thanks. Thank you. Let's go. Next, Councilmember De Salud. Sure. Yeah. In terms of well, you know, to begin with, I would have loved to have some of the money towards a kind of a Jean Sweeney Park. But I accept staff's analysis saying that that's ineligible. And so we move on in terms of what's before us. I, I support one of the categories being housing. And if there's going to be an abundance of funds for particularly the Marina village in, I'm supportive of that. Although I want to make sure to say $20 million of the $28 million probably isn't the right number. So. So I'm sorry. That's that's just not going to work. I think what we what's what's going to drive the number is whatever our analysis in terms of the sales and all that kind of stuff. But my gut level tells me, you know, $20 million is too high and dedicating so much of the $28 million on one thing is probably not going to not going to fly. But I am supportive of housing and and dedicating a portion of that to the marina village. And because I do think it'll be a cause the way that I want to pursue it, at least it would be a permanent asset of the city of Alameda. And like I said, by virtue of its location to all the social and public and economic amenities, I think that makes it something that we shouldn't miss an opportunity to to to take advantage. It's not on the list explicitly. But you know what keeps me up at night, especially when we got the report about the about the groundwater coming up as a result of sea level rise. I think that's something that keeps me. Up at night. I know that it's not on the list, the category of sea level rise. But but I just want to note that it is something that keeps me up and it is something that cuts across the city. I don't know if somehow that's housing related insofar as, you know, all the houses, all the residential buildings or for that matter, all the buildings have to link up through our stormwater system or or take advantage of our stormwater system. But I just want to know that that's the thing that keeps me up at night and I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, vice mayor of L.A.. I absolutely support spending ARPA funds as needed based off of our assessments relative to the Marina Village. And I think that that is a good use in terms of when we talk about equity, sometimes those who need the most help. That's really what equity is about, as is sometimes we are going to spend a significant amount of resources to have an impact on those who need the most help. And I think, you know, I think that we can do something really positive there. I also think that there you know, if there are concerns relative to additional well, I think that we've addressed most of our budget shortages. But if there are service needs that are ongoing relative to providing services, I want to make sure that we're not cutting further services. So I do want to make sure that our budget is taken care of and we don't have additional cuts because I think we passed a fairly tight budget. I also would like to find a way to. To maximize the use of these funds for other housing needs. So I just want to make sure that that direction is very clearly given to staff. So if it's not the Marina Village and what are other ways we can we can maximize and assist with the housing needs that we have, because that is the top council priority. I think that there are other things that that are being discussed at the state level by Senator Skinner. Huddle is working on that. There's a number of other things. I think there's going to be multiple layers of assistance coming to families and to folks in need. And I really do think that where we can make the greatest impact with the ARPA funds at the city of Alameda level really is towards meeting our housing needs. Thank you. So, just to wrap up, I. Just. Dropped my agenda. I'd be lost without it. I want to echo something Councilor Knox White said in our previous item. We should think big in what we're doing. These ARPA funds have been described as a once in a lifetime opportunity. Once in a generation. This is the sort of thing that won't come around again. So we do want to do big things that make an impact. And and I applaud the the staff report. It's very well laid out. I want to just I draw your attention to page four of the staff report where there is that discussion about the housing, homelessness and behavioral health. And there are some projects that are are proposed the part of transitional housing program, the hotel acquisition. I agree with my colleagues who have said yes use ARPA funds toward the purchase of the marina village in but not all 20 million. And it's also important to remember that there are other sources. This is going to be a matter of cobbling together some sources. It's just so exciting to have these opportunities are coming added around the same time. But in addition to this federal money, we've got money coming in from the state. There's some county money that may actually be used to help us we may be able to use to help pay the operating costs. So, no, we don't need to take 20 million of our 28 million for the marina village in. But we can we can have some pretty good seed money to help make that project a reality. But I also want to just go back to what a couple of the speakers have said, and I should stop and say it was a pleasure to meet yesterday on a screen like this, but with members of the Animated Justice Alliance, the Transform Alameda and the Alameda Renters Coalition. Thank you so much for enlightening me for your comments this evening on a number of different topics, including this one. We did talk a bit about this possibility of using part of Alameda Hospital as something akin to the Whitebread Clinic that you've heard discussed in these meetings before. That's the underpinning of the Cahoots Program in Eugene, Oregon, because it is this facility that provides mental health, physical health, substance abuse, housing, resource connections, and also things like just a day center, like a respite care for people who just need to get off the street where they're having whatever episode or mental health crisis they don't necessarily need to be committed or even overnight, but they just need a place to get away. And so we have started conversations. I will talk this up as often as they have the opportunity. And I know that our city manager, Eric Leavitt, is in conversation with the city managers of the city. Eric Hayward in San Leandro, right? Yeah. And we are neighboring cities, similarly sized and there is some interest and the city managers are looking into what the possible funding mechanism might be. I know they want us to connect back with health systems that oversees Alameda Hospital, Highland and others. But I think there's some pretty exciting potential there for us to provide these alternative services that would be well needed by our community and maybe some of our neighbors. And also to help Alameda Hospital, which I understand is struggling a bit with low census numbers. And, of course, our residents, property owners here in Alameda, whether you business or residential, you pay $298 every year in your property tax. I know because I chaired that campaign and, you know, we created the health care district to be able to levy that property tax. So let's make sure our money is being well spent and maybe bring in some other dollars from outside communities. So very much interested in in pursuing that opportunity to to make that a reality with some of these are funds. And then as far as the universal basic income, just last week in the one of the trailer bills to the governor's budget, there is money, a nice pot of money for pilot programs, for universal basic income. What little I've been able to read about it, it would be directed toward youth, young people exiting the foster care system . That's a population near and dear to my heart. Some of you know, I have a background as a probation officer, and these are kids who pretty much raise themselves sometimes just. Shuttled around from one foster home to another. And then they come to an age. They're young adults and they're out on their own. And so if they could be assisted with universal basic income and we have them here in Alameda and also some of the pilot program would be directed toward pregnant mothers in certain income categories. And we've talked earlier, there's not much better investment you can make than in in children and babies and you know healthy growing up. So so I don't know that we need to set aside ARPA funds now at least maybe not in the first tranche because I think we should take take a shot at applying for those state funds. And at our mayors conference, county mayors conference meeting in May, one of our speakers was or our speaker was Michael Tubbs, former mayor of Stockton, California. And you probably all know about that two year pilot that Stockton did. So I know the city manager and assistant city manager have Mr. Tag's contact information. He is now an advisor to. An. Economic adviser to Governor Newsom. So I think that's where that that UBI pilot program may have come from. I'm also really intrigued by the concept of a community of land trust. This is something that our neighbor Oakland has done and other cities as well. It was mentioned by a couple of the speakers and it's an opportunity when there's maybe a distressed property or foreclosed property for the city to buy it and, you know, turn it into that affordable housing. So maybe some money for an affordable for a community land trust. And then so with my meeting yesterday, I'm afraid we didn't get to talk about a community resiliency hub. I am really intrigued about what that is. I confess this is the first time I heard that term, so email me and tell me more about it. But that might be something that we should look into too anyway. And I want to just send a huge shout out to all of the staff who helped put this report together. That was a lot of material, and I know you're going to have a lot of work to do with just these different allocations and the reporting requirements. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, I let's see, I'm just looking back to the ask, is it that we are just giving staff directions? So okay, so the recommendation is to assign a portion of the 26.8 million and again in two tranches. So we've only got the first tranche right now from the ARPA, ARPA of 2021. So staff to you staff. And I'm going to include the city attorney and city clerk. Do you have a. Direction from. Us? Do you want need a motion? What's your pleasure? So, Eric, take himself off our tickets. I want. To make sure. That it. Other too. I was thinking emotion if you wanted to. I mean, I think we have some direction, but I think a specific emotion would be helpful just to give us specific direction on which which of those approaches. I think I sort of understand. But want to make sure. Okay. So, Mr. Bowden, you want to weigh in on what you've heard and what you might need in the form of a motion to provide clarity? Well, I guess what I will what I will say is that I heard from four council members, too, to focus on housing as in that Marina Village project. I think some of the earlier items this evening lend themselves to that. The timing will have to work work on a schedule for that piece of the project and our analysis of the true costs and the funding sources. I think public health came up in a couple of different contexts, and so I think that we could provide some additional options related to public health and how we how we invest in. You know, whether it's mental health clinic or whether it's other local support for public health. And then the the. Business assistance didn't come up more than once. I think it'd be great to hear counsel's direction related to the general fund and revenue loss. I guess the only clarifier that I'll put on to that is that that funding does come back in and then it becomes part of a broader ability to spend on different priorities. And so it is more flexible in some ways. Once it does come back through the general fund so that that is something that we can continue to refine and we have until the end of 2024 to fully program all of these funds so we could look at it in future budget cycles as well. So so it doesn't have to be done tonight. But I just wanted to add that context on the the revenue loss discussion. Yeah. Thank you for bringing that up. And I favor the approach that you just articulated because ARPA is wonderful, but we are limited to them. We have a lot of things we can spend on, but we are limited to the the regulations that the federal government has put forth. If this money goes back into the general fund, it gives us much more flexibility for other things that we can spend on. So that would be my direction. But guess what? And that's what I was just going to call on you. Thank you for putting your hand up because you brought this up from the beginning. Yeah. So I would be supportive of that. But I would also want to make sure that we had some sort of spending guidelines. I don't want to say let's let's just ask for the 8 million. It's flexible and then it becomes kind of the grab bag. That's not like if we're giving direction on the project, we should be. Then in my mind, the flexibility should go toward to meet the goals that we're spending the rest of the money on for the most part. And not that. You want to propose some. You know, I guess for me, I'm I feel like we're honing here still as opposed to just selecting, you know, and so so I think actually that the assistant city manager did a great job of of, you know, as the one business support person. And I will I will let that go. But I think I think he I think he did a good job of kind of outlining that in terms of the goals, I think that they should be kind of housing, mental health and and public health related programs that are not would not be reimbursable through this program. And I don't know what those would be. I didn't come actually prepared for for for kind of. Yeah. And Vice Mayor Val, I set your hand up. Yeah. I was just going to say, I think that that's really what I was getting at. When I talk about the revenue loss and potential loss of services, I think we as a council can can outline what that would be. But my concern is, you know, if we're if we're looking at revenue loss, that could impact the services that we're trying to provide relative to this program or to other priorities. That's really what I would be looking for in. Counsel for her center. Oh, and I was just going to say, Ross. I guess maybe you guys. Are relative to the business, and I think businesses are also included within that directive as an impact to loss of services. We have done a number of different things for our business districts, including providing outreach and things like that that have had and services that have provided, you know, overall help for the for the entire business district . And I think to the extent that that so I do think it is relevant and tied to this conversation. Councilmember Knox, what I had said specifically, he's not necessarily interested in more grants. We've done a lot of grants with city funds, but I think that where we can leverage funds to provide services that are overarching, that meet a number of different needs, that's really what I'm looking for. Okay. And Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you, ma'am. So I wanted to follow up in regards to the smart city master plan that is on here, as well as the hotspots. I don't, of course, hear of any other support for it. So is there other money that the city is planning to use for that, or what is the I'm going to ask starter or is it going to be funded from some other way? Or what is what is the plan? Oh. And I will just throw in. Actually, I. Support that too. Is it we I guess I thought we were doing this for categories, but are we? Mr. Bodie, can you help me understand, because I saw. That the focus was in the report was on the four categories based on the input that was provided in May. But again, it it was it was an attempt to try and put our finger on where the the council wanted to, to focus the funds. The there is the possibility of adding to the program as we go. We're in the planning stages for that smart city master plan, for example, and we have funding to plan. But in terms of dollars to actually build it out, those have not been identified. So if other funding sources come to the housing topic for the Marina Village Project and there there remains ARPA funding as we go, we should be able to we should be able to reallocate those things on a on a rolling basis. We just don't want to wait too far in. I've been preaching that we have time, but eventually we will run out of time. Yeah. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer, go. Let's go back to you. I, I, I, I wanna hear what you have to say, and I think I support it. Well, I've been looking at these attachments, so we had multiple proposals, but we didn't just go line item by item. We're looking at your proposals as well as the categories. But one of them had wireless hotspots, $50,000. Is that something that's a standalone that we could dedicate $50,000 to hotspots? It is, and it's something that we could do. It's probably one of the, I'll say, lower hanging fruit, but probably very impactful, particularly as people are still doing a lot of things from their home at this point in time. Then there is also. So that's I think I think so. Right. So I think that's very important. But the service wireless lending hotspot, 18,007, what can you describe what that is and. Sure. This would be a program delivered by the library. We would essentially let people sign out hotspots. And I can't remember the number of devices, but it's a lot like your video. Your wireless system is 30. Thank you. So you'll be able you know, a household could theoretically be powered by one of these hotspots that they've signed out from the library, and there'd be no cost for that. It would just be like checking out a book and this program would fund the service and and and then obviously it would come back over time and it wouldn't just be something that would be given out forever. It would be on a lending basis. So if somebody did it for a couple of weeks, they could do that. They needed it for longer. We could probably figure that out, too. And then that virus hotspots. Can you say give us a description of where those would be across town? These are these this is all part of the library program. The broadband system would allow us to to create a network across the city to really create an Internet of basically a hard wired system that would allow us to increase Internet speeds across our community. The wireless hotspots could be adapted to those, and we could certainly stand up a broader network. So there's the lending from the library, and then there's the hard infrastructure, as well as the wireless infrastructure that would come with it, with the with the overall broadband program. And they're all tied to smart cities, whether it's a lending system or whether it's physical improvements and infrastructure. It is part of our broader effort to improve connectivity across the community. So. But if we don't. If we don't. So I'm not hearing 6 million. Maybe I didn't hear. Maybe I misheard or whatever. But you have on here another you have the 54 hot spots and then you have 18 seven for the landing. When you're talking about broadband, is that under the master plan, 6 million or is that correct? Yeah, that's the broadband is the 6 million. It's the Smart City program that basically would be a fiber network across the city, wi fi in our business districts. It's a it's an entire system that would be in the ground and above the ground that would that would improve connectivity across the community. So can the 50,000 and the 18 seven be used without that or you need the system. That can be used without that? So I would like us to at least consider the 70,000 to help people be able to have Internet access. But my preference is to do the 6 million plus. Thank you. I'm supportive of what Councilmember Harry Spencer says. And also bear in mind that we're talking about two tranches. So to the extent that some things really need to be done now and some can be done. You know. In a year when we get the other. Half. Or leveraging some of the money toward that. But I think that's very important. Mr. LEVIN. Actually, excuse my interruption. The city clerk would normally be reminding me we need to make a motion council before 11:00 and it's 10:52 p.m.. So we have these remaining items before us on the regular agenda. 60 is the police policy. Six F is the public art ordinance and six G is the Sunshine Ordinance. There are also five council referrals, but I don't think so. But do we have a motion to. I would entertain going to midnight to try to get at least D.F. and G heard. Councilor Max White, a motion made by Councilmember Knox White to add the secondary need for votes to pass. And we need to do it fast before 11. Face Maravilla There you go for a second. Thank you, Mayor. We have a roll call. Vote, please, Madam Clerk. A fleur de thug. I heard Spencer now Knox and actually I Leola. I may or as the Ashcraft high net carries. Four, two, one. Thank you. Okay. Who is speaking with it? Oh, Mr. Leavitt, I am sorry I had to interrupt. Yeah, go right ahead. But based on what I have heard in the last in the discussion, specifically in the last probably 10 minutes to 15 minutes, I would recommend that you direct us to go back and bring back a program that that's a combination of option one and option two. Because I think your focus was the housing, but also option one had a lot of the focus on things such as broadband and that type of infrastructure. The revenue loss could be used towards the housing and bring back a package combining those two. That would be my recommendation because we could probably narrow the broadband, maybe not go the full 6 million and maybe do some of the elements that have been talked about tonight. That sounds promising. What do we think, council? Councilmember Knox white guy. Any thoughts? Yeah, I guess I just want to say I am supportive of the the wireless hotspots and whatnot that the councilmember, her sponsor, was talking about. I'm going to get a little nervous when we start getting the broadband ahead of us actually having a smart, smart city plan. If staff is, I'm not going to say don't bring it back. But I'm because I have some concerns and I'd like to know a lot more about what literally we're going to do as opposed to just putting some broadband in and hoping to connect street lights and traffic lights to it. I think that to me, that's not good. That's not what I'm thinking about when I'm thinking big and and impactful. So they're just throwing that out there on the on the broadband. I'm a little. Yes. The wireless hotspots. And we're not 100% onboard. Okay. Yeah. I can hear her, Spencer. Still muted when more. Okay. My apologies. I continue to keep having unstable internet here. So is it is it possible to get more information from staff in regards to how many what percentage of our population actually has not had Internet does not have Internet access and how impacted they are? Because maybe I'm overestimating the impact. I feel like it's a very important need that impacts many. But obviously I'm not hearing that from my I don't really feel like I'm here. It's very much. So I do appreciate some of the support, but I would like some more information if possible, in regards to how great is the need , because maybe I'm overestimating it. Thanks. Well, I would suggest that rather than send staff to do more data digging, that we actually pursue this in the manner that the city manager proposed and to have him come back. I'm mindful of Councilmember NOx. We don't want to get too far out of our smart city plan. And, you know, there's some other ways we may be able to fund that. Infrastructure bills come in, come in from the feds soon, we hope. But, I mean, I do think that was a plausible suggestion by the city manager to have staff come back with this combination. Kels very nicely. I wish I could say I was a part of weekly meetings last summer with the school district to kind of answer that question. At the end of the day, while there were a few people, it was the numbers were not huge and they were very disparate. And what we found was that it was not something where infrastructure specifically was going to solve the issue, that there was there were needs of folks who had more need for a specific one household connection, as opposed to giant backbones of infrastructure. And so nothing kind of really moved forward because the school district was already handing out hot spots to families that needed them. So I think that that's where I think the hotspot idea continues to kind of build upon that. And then as we're doing the Smart City rethink, we can plug in further with what we learn. Councilmember Spencer. Fazio. So, yes, I've heard about the students getting them, but I've also heard the seniors that we normally see at these meetings have not been participating. And I think that that is actually a need. So maybe Mastic can help us figure out how we're going to connect our seniors to our community. Thanks. Let's have a motion. I will move. It is unfair. I'm not going to move to support the city manager's recommendation to combine to have staff come back with a combination of options one in two that has a housing focus but includes some revenue loss, flex for flexibility and wireless hotspot, and potentially some broadband support as discussed. And in addition to the public health and mental health that was all folded in. Right. Sorry. Yes, that was perfect. Thank you. We have a have had a motion. May we have a second, please? Health over day 3 seconds. All right. Maybe we have a real cover up with expectation. Oh, it is. If I. Were Spencer, I not quite. I. Leola. Mayor as he Ashcraft High that carries by five eyes. All right. Thank you. Thank you again, staff. Good work. Thank you, counsel. Good discussion. Let's move quickly on to item six D Medicare for you introduced. That was a thank you staff. Good to see you all. Good night. Recommendation to authorize the chief of police to update the existing Alameda Police Department policy manual to be current with the existing best practices and statutory requirements. Thank you. And I know there is a little changing of the guard here. And as I believe our new police chief, at some point, I suppose we have to stop saying new, but he's still pretty new. Here is our police chief, Nishant Joshi. Welcome, Chief Joshi. Good evening, Madam Mayor, and city members of the City Council. So I'm the item that I'm bringing for it has to do with departmental policies. Well, when I first came to the department about five weeks ago, I learned that there were several policies that required updates to meet statutory requirements and best practices. So the department contracts with a company called Flexible and Flexible develops and updates. Our policies, like support, consists of a team of policy and legal researchers and attorneys who regularly review case law and legislative updates along with industry best practices as they make these reviews. They automatically, excuse me, send policy update recommendations to the department. The department has reviewed the recommendations and is going to ask for authorization to update the policy. So I'll provide a brief overview. There are several policies of of that that include the recommendations that are in here. So I'll start with the first policy, and that's policy 300 that is on use of force. The previous. Chief Joshi, I apologize for the interruption. I did also just want to introduce the other individual on camera who just came on is Alan Cohn from our city attorney's office, who represents the police department. Welcome, Mr. Cohen. All right. Sorry, Chief. Back to. You. Oh, no problem at all. So the first policy is excuse me, policy 300 on use of force. The previous policy did not contain language that specifically prohibited the use of the carotid restraint or chokehold. And so the department did remove that as a as a force option last year. However, now this policy recommendation includes specific language that calls out and prohibits the use of such holds. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training removed the instruction as well. And so we're recommending that we accept this recommendation. I'll move on to the next policy. That's policy 314. That's on vehicle pursuits. The previous policy had language that permitted a secondary vehicle that's involved in a pursuit to notify dispatch of the pursuit. And it says as soon as reasonably practicable, practicable. The new language is actually more straightforward, and it directs a secondary unit to notify dispatch of their involvement in a pursuit immediately. And this is significant, especially as a chief. There's an as I think about risk it with vehicle pursuits, there's an inherent risk associated with vehicle pursuits. And then anytime we add an additional vehicle in a pursuit, the risk increases as well. So we don't want any delayed information about how many units are involved in pursuit because we want our monitoring supervisor commander to be in a position of advantage where we're I require them to constantly monitor the pursuit detail so they can determine whether or not to cancel a pursuit. So it's minor language, but I think it's very relevant and important to adopt. Next policy is 320 on domestic violence investigations. Previous policy included factors such as marital status between the aggressor and the victim. The new policy is inclusive of all classes policy 324, which is temporary custody of juveniles. The policy, the previous policy defined, quote, sight and sound separation as located or arranged to prevent physical, visual and auditory contact. The new policy continues that definition, but also adds that is more than brief or inadvertent. So it's just clarifying language on existing policy. The previous policy also directed officers to transport juveniles who are suspected of using a firearm in a crime to a juvenile facility. The new policy actually increases that threshold by directing officers to transfer juveniles who use a firearm to commit a felony.