Oakland Finance and Management Committee Meeting – October 28, 2025

The meeting convened at 9:34 a.m. with Chair Ramachandran presiding and four members present. The committee addressed seven agenda items, including an update on options to raise $40 million in ongoing revenue, a whistleblower investigation into overtime calculation practices, a fire staff premium pay side letter, the annual language access compliance report, and the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFERS) investment portfolio update. Public comment was heard on several items.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Draft Minutes (July 8 and September 30, 2025): Motion by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Councilmember Wong. Passed unanimously (4-0).
• Termination of Schedule of Outstanding Committee Items: Motion by Councilmember Unger, seconded by Councilmember Brown. Passed unanimously (4-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 3 (Revenue Options): Kevin Dally (co-chair of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission) emphasized that parking policy must prioritize safety and that better-funded enforcement could reduce dangerous parking and increase revenue. A second speaker criticized the proposed parcel tax, noting steep property value declines (e.g., 30% drop in zip code 94612 since early 2020) and high homeowner burdens (property tax rates five times the national average, average homeowner insurance $1,600 annually). The speaker urged the council to consider these impacts before placing a tax on the ballot.
• Item 4 (Overtime Audit): A speaker accused the city of failing to recover $1.7 million in overpaid overtime to 526 employees and noted that a consultant hired in May 2025 had not yet fixed the system. The speaker also referenced a May 2025 IFPTE Local 21 finding that the city had not filled 38 sworn officer positions, a move that could reduce overtime costs by $13 million.
• Item 5 (Fire Side Letter): A speaker criticized the city for originally drafting MOU language that did not comply with CalPERS reporting requirements, calling it a “screw up” that required a fix. The speaker contrasted this with the council’s previous treatment of Omar Farmer.
• Item 6 (Language Access): A speaker questioned the finance committee’s failure to ask about the total cost of the equal access program, including interpretation services, translations, staff training, and premium pay for bilingual employees. The speaker noted that while the ordinance focuses on Spanish and Chinese, other language groups may be overlooked.
• Item 7 (PFERS Portfolio): No public comments were made beyond the speaker’s opening statement.
• Open Forum: A speaker referenced a grand jury report warning against selling bonds, arguing the city was financially unsolvent and that bond sales put the city at risk.

Discussion Items

• Item 3 – Revenue Options to Raise $40 Million: Budget Administrator Brad Johnson presented a report analyzing options for a new parcel tax to generate $40 million annually. He noted that the city’s PFERS (retirement) property tax override is phasing out, leaving most homeowners with net savings. For a $1 million home, the PFERS roll-off is about $1,500. Under a $40 million parcel tax, 61–63% of homes would see a net reduction, with low-income senior exemptions. Councilmember Unger asked about a progressive parcel tax based on property size; Johnson warned of legal risks and potential regressive effects. Councilmember Wong inquired about a utility consumption tax (UCT); Johnson noted it could be a general tax on the November 2026 ballot but cautioned against putting two measures on the same ballot. The item was received and filed unanimously (4-0).
• Item 4 – Overtime Calculation Audit: The administration reported that the city has used a more generous overtime formula than FLSA minimum for 17 years, establishing binding past practice. Any change would require collective bargaining. Chair Ramachandran expressed interest in memorializing the current practice. Director of HR Mary Howe suggested including it in CBAs or a process memo. Councilmember Unger requested a department-wide analysis of overtime calculations. The committee voted unanimously (4-0) to continue the item to the January 27, 2026 meeting for a written update.
• Item 5 – Fire Staff Premium Pay Side Letter: Crystal Remy Adams (Principal Employee Relations Analyst) presented a side letter with IAFF Local 55 to clarify eligibility criteria for the “fire staff premium” to comply with CalPERS reporting requirements. The change is effective retroactively to November 1, 2020, and has no additional cost. Chair Ramachandran noted that this is a statewide adjustment due to new CalPERS standards. Motion to approve and forward to the November 4, 2025 City Council consent agenda passed unanimously (4-0).
• Item 6 – Language Access Compliance Report: Program Analyst May Tam presented the annual report for FY 2024–25. Key data: 42% of Oakland residents speak a non-English language at home (most common: Spanish, Chinese); 24% of public-facing employees are bilingual; 412 documents translated; 308 hours of live interpretation provided; 795 survey responses covering over 45 languages. Chair Ramachandran and Councilmember Wong discussed accountability mechanisms and noted that the fire department relies on interpretation lines for medical emergencies. The item was received and forwarded to the November 4 City Council consent agenda unanimously (4-0).
• Item 7 – PFERS Investment Portfolio: Investment Manager Taylor Jenkins reported that as of June 30, 2025, PFERS had a portfolio of approximately $480 million and was 90% funded. Investment Consultant Davis Sandwic noted a 10.2% net return for the fiscal year, with the portfolio transitioning to lower-risk bonds (now 61% fixed income). The city’s contribution to PFERS decreased by $10 million this year due to strong performance. The item was received and filed unanimously (4-0).

Key Outcomes

• Item 3: Received and filed (4-0).
• Item 4: Continued to January 27, 2026, with a request for a written update on memorializing the overtime policy and a department-wide overtime analysis (4-0).
• Item 5: Approved and forwarded to the November 4, 2025 City Council consent agenda (4-0).
• Item 6: Received and forwarded to the November 4, 2025 City Council consent agenda (4-0).
• Item 7: Received and filed (4-0).
• Items 8 and 9: Withdrawn from the agenda and rescheduled to later dates by the Rules and Legislation Committee (October 23, 2025).