Start your day with the news you need from the Bay Area and beyond.

Sign up for our new Morning Report weekday newsletter.

Something is wrong with our city. The people need to be heard before it is too late. Alameda’s budget has tripled from $35 million in 1990 with Bill Norton as city manager to $95 million in 2018.

At the same time, population declined from 76,500 to 74,000. The budget in 1990 enabled the city to do what local government was meant to do: fix roads, maintain parks, provide police and fire protection. This year, city staff claimed it could not to perform basic government functions without going to the ballot for another $95 million in June, with another ballot measure to raise sales taxes already planned for the November ballot.

The needs of the school district (children) were not included. In 30 years, staff has managed to add new positions like public information officer ($120,000 per year), allocate more funds for salaries and pensions, and hire the same consultants hired by the Alameda firefighters’ union. This leaves few dollars to fill potholes.

Like the Alameda Journal Facebook page for neighborhood news and conversation from Alameda and beyond.

Some people say, “Building more homes will increase funds.” NOT TRUE. Residential development NEVER pays for the services it devours. The next suggestion is: “Bring in commercial to subsidize the residential.” Not any more with Amazon has storefronts begging for occupants. The 4,800 new approved homes will do nothing but subtract funds from the budget and add thousands and thousands of cars to already jammed commutes.

It gets worse: “Now ‘if the forecasts are right, the additional revenue coming into the General Fund over the next five years won’t be enough – in any of those years – to pay for the annual increase in pension costs. Indeed, during that period the city will need to find another $7.4 million (the sum of the annual shortfalls) from some other source just to cover the cost increases.’” Robert Sullwold, Yale ‘75, Harvard Law ‘79 see his analysis of Alameda’s fiscal woes in his Alameda’s Update, Nov. 2017. (https://alamedamgr.wordpress. com/2017/12/10/the-latest-financial-update/ .)

In 1937, with a population of 64,000, the electors voted for Alameda to become a charter city. They set yearly pay for the major officials: mayor, $3,600; City Council members, up to $1,200; city manager, $4,000; city attorney, $3,000; treasurer, $3,600; and auditor, $3,600.

While population has grown 16 percent, the city manager’s salary has increased to $269,125 plus benefits (estimated at 35 percent), and the city attorney’s salary has risen to $228,716 plus benefits (estimated at 35 percent).

Not only has pay increased, but they now have multiple assistants three, four, five or more to do their work. Mayor Spencer still receives the same $3,600 per year as her 1937 predecessor, and the City Council members still receive $1,200 each per year.

These leaders, elected by the voters to represent our priorities, need other jobs or other means of support to pay their bills. They have no personal staff, even part-time. When the city attorney or Planning Department officials speak, our leaders have no time or expertise to challenge some of the erroneous staff opinions masquerading as fact. Staff is running the show. While doing a good job for themselves, the result is a poor job for the city.

After the firefighters allowed mentally ill Raymond Zack to drown because of a lack of a boat in 2011, they were rewarded with a new fire station, new equipment and three new sworn highly paid officers, that in other cities are staffed by civilians. Replacement of yet two additional fire stations, 2, and 5 was to come from the $95 million bond as well.

In its plan to get voters to tax themselves for funds to perform basic municipal services, staff chose to pay for multiple telephone surveys in July 2017 and January 2018, to figure out what Alamedans want and are willing to pay for. The survey included the most sympathetic basic services. Notable were the choices omitted: fixing or replacing Lum Elementary School; a hiring freeze; the cost of the surveys themselves; $310,000 to place a $95 million bond measure raising taxes on ALL property on the June ballot; and both the cost of investigation of Council members Malia Vella and Jim Oddie’s allegations of malfeasance and their defense.

Alameda needs a vision for the next 50 years. Bank some land at Alameda Point for the inevitable new crossing. Stop approving new housing until the city uses real traffic figures, not cherry-picked data from low days but averages of daily traffic.

Does anyone but staff believe there are no queues at intersections leaving Alameda in the morning commute? Implement competitive bidding for professional services, so the voters know who is hiring which firm and what criteria are being used. Stop paying for surveys, expensive consultants, and so on, in the inevitable quest for more money. Use common sense. We don’t need consultants to figure out traffic is the biggest concern. If traffic grows as MTC and Caltrans project, 40 percent to 50 percent by year 2040, repair of the road system is going to take more funds than anyone dreams, let alone budgets.

When the city manager, city attorney or the Planning Department officials speak, our elected leaders have no choice but to rely on these opinions. They have no resources with which to challenge, compare or contrast the opinions. They assume they are getting true advice. That is not always the case. Instead of running the city with what we have, and saying “Sorry, this is it folks,” they are planning to keep their well-paying salaries by duping the voters into taxing themselves to pay for basic services.

Like the Alameda Journal Facebook page for neighborhood news and conversation from Alameda and beyond.

In 2008, when staff recommended changes to the charter to eliminate limits on the salary for city attorney, city manager, treasurer and auditor, they did not include a raise for the City Council or mayor, or for them to have any independent staff. Why? Staff wants our leaders to be limited and controlled by staff. They have succeeded.

What is the solution? Could it be time for the citizens to vote for another form of government? Perhaps a strong mayor as in Oakland? An elected city attorney? How about real salaries for our elected officials? Claiming to “represent” the poor is one thing, but how about making it possible for someone who really experiences poverty first hand to set policy?

Until Alameda makes some changes, the citizens cannot hold staff accountable unless they can convince three City Council members with different views — to fire their staff. While all the posturing, rhetoric and proclaiming fear of “lawsuits” by lawyer council members, the city is losing control over its future. It is in the hands of highly paid staff, most of whom don’t live here, don’t send their children to school here, and don’t care about Alameda beyond its ability to pay their salaries while facing the least of amount of turmoil and work for them.

Barbara Thomas is a former vice mayor, City Council member and Alameda resident.