League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Alameda County, CA November 6, 2012 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues Council Member; City of Alameda

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Alameda and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on , , Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest. 1. (Most pressing problem) What is the single most pressing problem facing the City in the next 24 months and how would you work with your elected colleagues to solve it? Answer from Stewart G. Chen: In my opinion, the most pressing challenge facing the City of Alameda is maintaining a healthy financial reserve. We are able to have a balanced budget for the next two years, but the five-year forecast is not as promising. So, although we may not have to deal with this situation in the next 24 months, I would like to be proactive and steer our City as far away from financial problems as possible. Our economy sustains our city and we need to be self-sufficient. One revenue stream that we can try to improve is our sales tax revenue. If we can attract more visitors and shoppers to Alameda, we can improve our sales tax revenue. Moreover, it would also create more jobs for our residents, boosting their income level and spending power. I'm willing to work with my elected colleagues, as well as our staff, to come up with the best plan to achieve this. Our City was able to do this with Park Street; we should be able to take the lessons learned from this and apply them to Webster Street as well as the Marina Village and South Shore Center. I'm also aware that not all situations are the same, so we need to have a discussion with our local merchants and listen to their concerns and suggestions. I see this as a community effort. The City cannot do this alone. We need to work together with our local businesses if we are to successfully revitalize our commercial districts. Answer from Gerard Valbuena Dumuk: How would you address the city's unfunded pension and health care liabilities? First thing we need to do is flip the panic switch to the "OFF" position. The fund managers at PERS are not investing for the short term. There is a lot of hyperbole on investment losses based on the recession, but if you look at PERS on a 20 year scale they look pretty good. Not too long ago the annual rate of return for PERS was close to 30% . This year the rate of return is closer to 1%. The message I must get across is to concern yourself with the average, currently hovering at 7%. The longterm investment strategies for PERS are sound, however they can stand to make some adjustments for the global market. The issue of retirement spiking (the process of cashing out using credits as their final compensation calculation) has been addressed most recently with the passage of AB 340. Overall this practice did hurt the system tremendously, but it will heal. There is a fiduciary responsibility to handle these funds in a manner that is fair to the employees and the taxpayer. Generally speaking, 70 to 80 percent of the pension cost or pay out is covered by earned profits from the investment return. The rest is covered by employee contribution. This, as well, has been addressed by AB 340: all new employees are required to pay half the "normal cost" of their retirement. Normal cost is the cost of the pension minus any unfunded liabilities. In general we stand to see an overall increase in the employee contribution rate that is fair to both the employee and the taxpayer. Let PERS continue to do what is does best. Let them continue to invest our money, so that they can make money, so that people can retire. Historically PERS has done an exemplary job. They are investing for the long term. The legislature passed AB 340 overwhelmingly, by a vote of 66 to 9. This new pension reform bill will trickle down to the local level and I recommend that we hunker down and weather the storm. Answer from Jane Sullwold: Unquestionably, the budget is our biggest problem. The key fact about the current state of the City budget is that, according to City staff, the City will run a deficit -- i.e., spend more than it takes in -- every year between now and fiscal year 2016-17, and, as a result, the City will exhaust its reserves -- i.e., run out of money -- by the end of that year. The budget for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 anticipates revenues of $71.1 million and operating expenses of $71.8 million, leaving a deficit of $0.7 million. While revenues are projected to be fairly flat for the next four fiscal years, expenses are projected to rise, resulting in ever-increasing deficits that will have to be covered by our General Fund reserves. By fiscal year 2016-17, the deficit is projected to be $5.7 million, which will more than exhaust the reserves. There are some who apparently believe that nothing can or should be done to address this situation. For example, I have heard that: The federal government will come to the rescue because Obamacare will reduce health care costs and thus reduce the amount the City has to pay for medical benefits for current and retired employees. The state government will come to the rescue because, having adopted the Housing Element, the City can obtain grants from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to pay for transportation and infrastructure improvements. I hope both of these wishes come true. But I, for one, am not willing to risk our future by relying on Washington or Sacramento to solve our problems for us. Nor I am willing to risk our future by trusting that economic recovery -- if and when it occurs -- will eliminate the need to make hard choices. I hope we haven't forgotten the recent past. Every time the economy boomed, fiscal restraint went by the wayside. Why pay attention to costs when the dot.com boom, or, later, the housing boom was filling the state coffers with tax revenue? Look where such misplaced optimism got us. Eventually, the piper has to be paid. This is not a bean-counter issue. Unless the budget is brought under control, the services provided by the City to its citizens are going to suffer. Some services may have to be eliminated. Some may have to be reduced. And others may be provided only if citizens are willing to pay for them out of their pockets. I don't want to wake up one morning five years from now and find out it'll now cost me $5 if I want to use the public library or attend a class at the Mastick Senior Center. But if a "don't worry, be happy" approach prevails, that day may come. What actions should we take to get the budget under control? The less painful course would focus on increasing revenues. The City's revenues come from taxes, and there are only two ways to increase tax revenues: increase tax rates or expand the tax base. The voters' recent rejection of Measure C suggests the electorate doesn't favor the former option. But exploiting the latter option is more complicated than simply proclaiming support for a "vibrant" business community. Different businesses offer different opportunities. Retail stores generate sales taxes. Office buildings generate property taxes. We've got to go after both. And we shouldn't kid ourselves by touting "out-of-the-box" -- some would say, off-the-wall -- notions of minting money by making Alameda a tourist destination. Renewing Alameda Point potentially would have the most dramatic impact on revenues -- in the long run. Currently, the revenue from commercial leases barely covers the City's costs. Once the City takes title to the developable area of the Point, we should undertake an aggressive program to market commercial buildings for sale or long-term lease. In exchange, we would want the buyer or lessee to invest in infrastructure and capital improvements. This is the approach that we chose for the Golf Complex -- and it can work at the base, too. But the effects won't be seen immediately. Increasing revenues won't solve the problem. We've got to focus on reducing costs. The familiar refrain is that the City has "cut costs to the bone," and there is simply nothing more that can be done. I don't buy it. My approach would be to identify the core services demanded by Alameda residents of their government and then determine the most cost-effective ways of providing them. If the conclusion is that Alamedans already are getting only essential services at the lowest possible cost, so be it. But let's be sure. Here's an example of what I mean: Fire protection obviously is a core service provided by the City. Back in 2009, the City engaged a consulting firm -- the International City/County Management Association ("ICMA") -- to analyze whether it was doing so in a cost-effective way. ICMA came up with a report contending that the City could reduce costs yet maintain acceptable service levels with fewer fire stations and fewer personnel. The Acting City Manager shelved the report, and it was never publicly discussed until it surfaced during the Measure C debate. At that time, both City staff and the firefighters' union ridiculed the report as full of flaws. They may well be right. But -- this time -- let's open up the topic for discussion. If I were on the Council, I'd invite the proponents and opponents of the report's recommendations to make their case publicly and take questions from not just the Councilmembers but also the public. Who knows? We might learn something. Maybe it will turn out that those who see nowhere to cut expenses are right. Then we'll have to explore the options of saving costs by out-sourcing services in whole or in part; entering into "public/private partnerships" in which we rely on the generosity of contributors to pay the costs of offering services once provided by the City, or charging citizens "user fees" for services they once got for free. Finally, any discussion of the budget cannot ignore the issues of "unfunded liabilities" and deferred maintenance. The City has two major "unfunded liabilities": Pension benefits. The City has promised its employees they will get a pension upon their retirement. But the City hasn't set aside enough money to pay the future cost of providing the pension benefits it promised. By one calculation, as of June 30, 2010, the unfunded liability for the public safety and "miscellaneous" employee pension plans was about $94.5 million. By another, the unfunded liability for these two plans was $183 million. Retiree health benefits. Similarly, the City has promised its employees that they will get medical and dental benefits upon their retirement. Again, however, the City hasn't set aside enough money -- in fact, it hasn't set aside any money -- to pay the future cost of providing the retiree health benefits it promised. According to the City's estimate, as of January 1, 2011, this unfunded liability amounted to $86.4 million. Obviously. the City doesn't have enough money available in the general fund to set aside now to cover these unfunded liabilities. In fact, if the budget projections discussed above are accurate, the City can't even afford to begin setting aside a little money every year to make a dent in them. The pension task force appointed by City Manager John Russo has been considering what to do in this situation. No one believes it is acceptable for the City simply to walk away from the promises it made. One option worth further study is issuing pension obligation bonds to raise money to pay off or pay down the unfunded liabilities now. I expect the task force, whose report will be presented to Council on October 30, will crunch the numbers to determine whether this option makes financial sense. Like unfunded liabilities, deferred expenses are another elephant in the room. When the Fiscal Sustainability Committee was doing its work, the Public Works director estimated that the total cost of improving the City's infrastructure -- e.g., streets, sewers, storm drains, parks and the like -- was a whopping $662 million. Nevertheless, the fiscal year 2012-13 budget included only $17.8 million (of which only $1.2 million came from the general fund) for capital projects. Obviously, spending at that level leaves a lot of work left undone. As with the unfunded liabilities for pension and retiree medical benefits, we're not going to be able to tap the general fund to fill the gap all at once. Bringing the operating budget under control is a necessary but not sufficient first step. We'll still face a series of hard choices requiring trade-offs between maintaining the current level of services and ensuring that the infrastructure doesn't disintegrate in the meantime. The bottom line is that all options must be on the table and discussed openly if we hope to preserve our heritage and secure our future. Answer from Tony Daysog: The cities of Vallejo, Stockton, and San Bernadino went bankrupt because they failed to address their respective pension unfunded liabilities. We, in Alameda, need not panic + but we need to plan! When it comes to understanding the City's "unfunded liabilities" issue,there are three key issues. The first two have to do with certain formulas in place, whereas the third has to do with the discrete magnitude of unfunded liabilities. In total, Alameda has roughly $200 million in unfunded liabilities. According to Alameda 's most current audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, there are roughly $95 million in unfunded liabilities with regard to CalPERS, and another unfunded liability of roughly $100 million for post-employment health care. To be sure, city workers are not going to retire en masse tomorrow, forcing Alameda to cut a check in the amount of $200 million. Again, we need not panic + but we need to plan! The $95 million CalPERS-related unfunded liability is driven largely by the 3% at fifty retirement formula + the first of two sets of formulas discussed above. The first set of formula let's City Hall calculate how much in retirement each worker gets annually via CalPERS. The retirement formula for police is called "3% at 50", while for all other workers it's "2% at 55"; in other words, you multiply the 3% (in the case of police/fire) against the number of years served in Alameda, and that percentage is applied against an average of the final three years salary earned by a worker. So, if a police office worker for 25 years and her or his final average pay amounted to, say, $150,000, then through this first set of formula, this worker's annual CalPERS retirement pay is $112,500 (i.e. 25 X 3% X $150000 = $112,500). Thus, you can see how the "3% at 50" formula is driving many cities' including Alameda dire fiscal situation. In addition to the 3% @ 50 / 2% @ 55 formulas, there is a second set of formulas, which tell how much the worker and the city contribute toward the CalPERS related retirement. In this second set of formulas, police/fire set aside 11 cents for every one dollar in pay toward their own CalPERS retirement fund; all other workers set aside roughly 8.9 cents for every one dollar in pay toward CalPERS. However, bear in mind that the 11 cents/$1 dollar and 8.9 cents/$1 dollar are **not** the total amount contributed funds toward workers' CalPERS retirement. CalPERS calculates the total ratio that needs to be set-aside for workers' retirement: so, according to CalPERS, Alameda needs to set aside roughly 31 cents for every $1 in police/fire pay, and 13 cents for every $1 in pay for all other words. As indicated, police/fire and other workers are already paying 11 cents and 8.9 cents for $1 in wage/salary respectively, meaning City Hall picks up the difference by contributing 20 cents per $1 salary for police/fire, and 4 cents in $1 in salary for all other workers. But here's the problem: even as we (City Hall) are legally and contractually obligated to make good on the two sets of retirement formulas described above, for a variety of reasons, City Hall has not been adequately funding CalPERS and post-employment health plans, leading to the unfunded liability of $200 million. Why hasn't City Hall been socking away money? Largely because, right now, City Hall is already setting aside roughly $10 million a year on CalPERS, and a little under $2 million for post-employment health. But we really need to set aside more than $10 million for CalPERS and more than $2 million for post-employment health each year. So, in aggregate, we've set-aside "x", but we really need to set-aside "z", and the cumulative difference between "z" and "x" is $200 million: the issue is that City Hall is not socking away enough out of a concern for having enough money to pay for on-going municipal services. Compounding the problem: the bulk of the $200 million in unfunded liability is not for current workers, but for workers who are already retired. So, as important as this is, simply changing the two sets of retirement formulas above is not enough to declare victory, so to speak. The City Manager/City Treasurer/City Auditor are right now putting together a plan to deal with the unfunded liabilities of $200 million in a sustainable manner. I look forward to reviewing their plan; but, in reviewing their plan, I will be clear as to what I, as a Councilmember, expect to see: . two-tiered system: any new police/fire must return to "2% at 55" . keep "2% at 55" in place for current non-police and fire worker . keep agreed-upon "3% at 50" for current police/fire in place, although put that on negotiating table . Increase worker contribution toward own retirement, meaning police-fire will contribute more than 11 cents on the dollar they are already contributing, recognizing that the legal maximum is 15 cents on the dollar. . Increase all other workers' CalPERS contributions above the 8.9 cents per $1 in pay they are already contributing . Implement furloughs to generate savings that are then re-programmed back toward retirement plans: for two years, change workers' 4 days-by-10 hour schedule to 4 days-by-9 hour hours, to generate savings over the year of up to 10% of GF wage/salaries expenditures (i.e. $4.2 million to $7.0 million). Because Alameda is already operating on a 4-day work week, and because very few people access City Hall from 8 to 9 am, this two-year furlough plan will not result in a reduction of services to the public; they are not open on Friday anyways. . During 2 year furlough period, identify City Hall positions that might be combined so as to deliver services in a more efficient manner, such that, **after** the 2-year furlough period, when these targeted positions are combined, we generate savings commensurate to annual $4.2 million to $7 million in savings generated during the furlough period. In this way, City Hall can begin to incrementally buy-down $200 million in unfunded liability. . "Lock Box": In late 1990s, Al Gore talked about setting aside Clinton's surplus into a "lock box" to shore up Social Security: similarly, City Hall must create a policy whereby a portion of any new money (such as sales tax from the upcoming Target project) must be set-aside to pay-down the $200 million in unfunded liability. . Be prepared to implement Jerry Brown's recent "50/50" CalPERS retirement, and other features of that plan: by "50/50", Brown meant that if City and bargaining groups don't come to an agreement in five years, cities can unilaterally impose the "50/50", which means all workers (police, fire, others) could be required to contribute up to 14% of their salaries toward retirement, with City matching that with a corresponding 14% of pay contribution (hence, "50/50") What is NOT on the table for me: For me, privatizing basic municipal services is not a consideration, as I am convinced we can deal with the immediate and structural budgetary deficit through freezes, cuts, revenue policies, and new retirement formulas. Answer from Jeff Cambra: The slow recovery of the economy and state raids on money that normally would flow to the city coupled with rising costs will challenge the city's ability to continue to provide the full complement of services residents currently enjoy while maintaining a cash reserve. In order to pay for the increased cost of services, I would work with the city staff to continue their present program of aggresively marketing and attracting new business to the city. The sales tax generated from these businesses will help cover rising costs. Property values continue to rise generating additional property tax revenue as well. Additionally, the City will need to look at creative ways to deliver services through the use of technology, seeking alternate funding sources like grants, establishing public private partnerships (like the animal shelter), and volunteerism. How the City balances its budget will require a transparent public engagement process that allows all Alameda residents to have input on what they prioritize as essential services. The cornerstone of my campaign is collaboration. As a professional community mediator, I have extensive experience with bringing stakeholders together, and facilitating civil and respectful negotiations aimed at resolving issues in a manner that takes into account the interests of all the stakeholders. As a councilmember, I am part of a team of professionals consisting of city staff, the city manager, three councilmembers, and the mayor. I come to the council with no agenda other than to clearly understand the issues, listen with an open mind to all the proposed solutions from any source, reflect the views of residents, and work to reach consensus with my council counterparts. 2. (Growth and development) What is your vision of Alameda ten years from now as it relates to residential growth and business development? Answer from Jeff Cambra: Alameda Point provides the City with the best opportunity to create a variety of housing alternatives including multifamily, work force, senior resident cohousing, live/work space, and single family housing. I envision residential housing, especially the multifamily configuration clustered around a ferry based transit hub with free shuttles to take area residents to the terminal. This would provide an alternative to driving through the Posey tube each workday morning for those residents working off island. Ideally, I would like to have jobs available so that Point residents would not have a reason to leave the island. In regards to business development, I have proposed that the City focus on renting out the existing structures on Alameda Point to light industry to increase rental income. Retail businesses to support Alameda Point residents should be located on Webster Street to facilitate the continued upgrading of that area. To date, the city staff has aggresively marketed Alameda bringing in VF Outdoors to Harbor Bay and renting out two of the large hangars at the Point. As the regional economy continues to improve, Alameda Point will be in high demand. Answer from Stewart G. Chen: My vision of Alameda ten years from now is that of a safe, vibrant, thriving community with well-maintained homes, excellent schools and public facilities, clean and inviting recreational parks, and lively and bustling business districts, while retaining a warm and neighborly atmosphere. Actually, the qualities and feeling will not be unlike what my wife and I felt when we first moved here more than twenty years ago, but with the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the growth in our City's population. I'm hoping that we can develop and utilize Alameda Point for this purpose. Alameda Point can be developed and utilized to improve the quality of life of our residents if we use it wisely to provide jobs, housing, recreational areas, and a transportation system. With over 900 acres of land, developing even just a fraction of the whole property would be enough to accomplish this. My vision of Alameda Point includes affordable housing coupled with recreational areas, like parks and a wildlife refuge, and maybe even an elementary school and a library that the residents can enjoy. It would also have a public transportation system to serve the area and minimize traffic and pollution. All of this would be supported by a vibrant mix of shops and businesses that would also help boost our economy. However, I am also concerned about the toxic wastes and hazardous materials that have been left at Alameda Point. Because of this, I would like to proceed with caution and we may not be able to get everything done in ten years. Nevertheless, I plan to do my best to get this started and accomplish as much as I can for the sake of our future generation. Answer from Gerard Valbuena Dumuk: I believe in a slow growth policy for the island of Alameda. "We're an island. We can't magically make more land" However, demographically speaking there is a general shortage of senior housing. For every man, woman and child, there has been historically a lack of accommodation for a grandparent or two. I am an advocate for senior housing as there are many benefits. For starters, having a grandparent around completes the family unit. I can attest to that fact, because I lived in a household that included my grandparents. They watched me after school, helped me with my homework, influenced me as a young person and motivated me to excel in school. They even paid me to bring home good grades. Affordable senior housing also meets the affordable housing requirement imposed on our city by the state. In addition, Housing and Urban Development will enter into rent subsidy contracts for a period of thirty years which is the life of the loan. If we are creative about our funding options senior housing can prove fiscally sustainable. Unassisted affordable senior housing also comes with an underlying economy in the form of care providers, and health care workers. Seniors are also users of public transportation, they carpool, generally commit no crime and are usually active members of our communities. Answer from Jane Sullwold: If City Council, the City's employees and the citizens are willing to be realistic and do the hard work it will take to get Alameda's budget under control, then I believe Alameda in ten years will still be a wonderful place to live and raise a family. The City has agreed to comply with the State of California's housing element by designating ten areas within the developed part of Alameda where multi-family housing may be built. As a member of Council, I would look closely at any specific development proposed for those areas, particularly the impacts of the proposal on traffic on and off our island. I was pleased to hear the Mayor state after Council adopted the new housing element that Measure A will still govern the rest of developed Alameda. For my part, I am committed to that result to ensure that our historic residential areas are preserved. Regarding Alameda Point, I would expect in ten years to see construction of all or part of the 1,425 residential units that our "no cost" conveyance agreement with the Navy allows, 25% of which would be affordable housing as we have promised. I favor reusing historic buildings where possible, but I recognize that the exact type and location of any housing development will depend on market conditions. The next ten years should be very interesting in terms of business development. Once we obtain title to the first 918 acres of Alameda Point, I envision aggressive marketing to find long-term tenants or buyers for the existing buildings in the historic district, with an emphasis on businesses that will create jobs and sales tax revenue. With a recovered economy, we should also see growth in our existing business districts where there are current vacancies, including Webster Street, South Shore and the Harbor Bay Business Park. Answer from Tony Daysog: I see Alameda Point as a place where "life cycle" needs of local residents from across the City, as well as residents living there can be met. By "life cycle" needs, I mean a variety of things that everyone needs at different points in our lives: · In terms of "life cycle" residential uses, we must plan affordable and well-designed townhouses for young adults, who, over time, might then move into larger single-family homes in historic Alameda; perhaps they will purchase homes of elderly-residents who want to scale-down from large homes to active senior housing, which we must also plan for at Alameda Point. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, we need to understand what kind of successes they can point to with regard to implementing award-winning residential designs that speak to all ages and price points? In terms of "life cycle" approaches to economic development, we need to pursue young businesses in burgeoning sectors + such as food/beverage manufacturing + encourage their growth at Alameda Point, and, once mature, encourage their further growth at Harbor Isle Business Park or Marina Village. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, in the selection process, we need to understand how potential developers targeted and then subsequently attracted businesses in key sectors. "Life cycle" economic development applies also to job development: we need to encourage businesses with an abundance of career pathways offering upward mobility. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, we need to understand in what ways these entities targeted and attracted businesses with an abundance of career pathways. What strategies work; what strategies based on their experience work less well? In terms of recreation, Alameda Point should have active recreation areas for young and young-at-heart to play informally or in organized sports activities; but we must also plan for recreational activities for persons of all ages who simply want to walk waterfront paths with beautiful view corridors or the Bay Area and San Francisco in the distance. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, we need to understand what thought or strategies potential builders have in mind when it comes to including in the built environment active and passive recreational amenities? 3. (Partnership of city with schools) Good schools are important for a city's economic growth and well-being. What is the most effective way the City can partner with the school district to improve the academic performance and perception of our schools? Answer from Stewart G. Chen: In my opinion, academic performance can be measured objectively by using standardized tests and perception of our schools can be influenced by our students' academic performance, the colleges they attend, as well as the level of success that they achieve in their chosen fields. I agree that good schools are important for a city's economic growth and well-being. Aside from their families, schools play a major role in molding our young people's minds. I also recognize the expertise of our educators in teaching our children and developing their talents. I believe that the City should play a more supportive role and be willing to listen to the recommendations of the school district. Parents, students, educators, and city officials can work together to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. Parents can instill the value of education and the joy of learning in their children; educators can teach and help students discover and develop their talents; students can help and support each other; and city officials can help provide the resources to support these activities. Answer from Tony Daysog: When prospective residents and business owners come to town, what's the first thing they always ask? First and foremost, they always want to know the quality of our schools. Thus, City Council must partner with the local school district. When I was on Council, I re-surrected the then-dormant City Council/school board joint planning committee. I also successfully championed moving the school board meeting from the Old Alameda High School to the more modern Alameda City Hall. As a Councilmember, I also developed the city's traffic safety tool-kit, which led to 4-way stop signs near Franklin and Edison Elementary Schools, and improved pedestrian safety signage near Chipman and Haight schools. But Councilmembers must be actively engaged with our school leaders, not just passively engaged. By this, I mean if I am on City Council and I see many schools closed (as a series of schools were closed in my West End neighborhood), I will raise my voice, because property values are a function of good and open public schools: I will ask, what can be done in the short, medium and long-term to keep our neighborhood schools open and vibrant. Likewise, as a Councilmember, I would ask questions about spending $500,000 a year on a lease for office space in a shopping center such as Marina Village in the West End, asking if the City can provide more affordable space at facilities such as at Alameda Point, or any other appropriate space owned by the city. The quality of life requires close partnership between the City and school district. In that partnership, as a Councilmember, I will not refrain from asking tough questions the answers to which help the school district in ultimately achieving its primary mission of serving children. Answer from Jeff Cambra: The City presently has a sub-committee made up of two members of the school district board of trustees and two members of the city council that meet to discuss ways to work together for greater efficiency and cost savings. I strongly support this type of collaboration as the best way to identify opportunities that benefit all concerned. Answer from Gerard Valbuena Dumuk: The channels between the school district and the city council could use some widening. Currently our schools' funding is less than adequate by modern standards. Ultimately the the funding is a state and school district issue; however, any shortages in performance, morale, and perception of our schools becomes a local issue. Our first steps should be to identify the inadequacies and provide some out of the box solutions to solve them at the local level. Our High School students are on a four year cycle, and frankly we cannot afford to wait when it comes to certain things. Once inadequacies have been identified we can move forward with upgrades and renovations if additional funding is found. Any restrictions disallowing this can always be loosened. Philanthropists exist among us and nothing is impossible when it comes to a good old barn raising. There is no need wait for the state. If we want a new gym, we should be able to get that new gym between philanthropy, grants, and naming rights. If there is a Bill Gates or Larry Ellison that wants to sponsor one of our schools, I don't think many of our residents would be be opposed to naming it Gates or Ellison High. Answer from Jane Sullwold: Keeping the lines of communication open is essential. Although the City Council is not empowered to vote on school issues, nothing prevents it from making recommendations to the School Board and school administrators about appropriate steps to be taken. Council cannot prevent the School Board from spending AUSD money to lease new office space, but its members can, and should, raise their voices when the school administration decides to enclose historic Alameda High School with a prison-like fence. We also should recognize that the success of the City and the success of the school district are interrelated. If the City brings its budget under control and provides necessary services in a cost-effective manner, families will want to stay in, or move to, Alameda and send their children to our schools. It won't be just the City that benefits economically from such a result; the schools will benefit as well. And well-funded schools have demonstrably better academic performance and perceptions in the community. Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' responses are presented as submitted. Direct references to opponents are not permitted. The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.