Good morning and welcome to the special finance and management committee meeting of Tuesday, April 21st, 2026.

The time is now 9 a.m.

and this meeting may come to order.

Before taking role, I will provide instructions on how to submit speaker cards for items on this agenda.

If you're here with us in chamber and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill one out and turn one into myself or a clerk representative no later than ten minutes after the start of this meeting or before the item is read into record.

Registering to speak via Zoom is now due 24 hours prior to the start of this meeting time.

This meeting came to order at 9 a.m.

and speaker cards will no longer be accepted ten minutes after, making that time nine ten a.m.

We'll now proceed with taking roll.

Council members Brown.

Unger?

Here.

Wong.

Present.

And Chair Ram Chandranjan.

Present.

Thank you.

We have four members present.

And before we begin.

And before we begin, Chair, do you have any announcements at this time?

No announcements.

We have a big agenda.

Uh looking forward to getting through everything.

Thank you.

Okay.

Reading in item one, as today is a special meeting.

There are no minutes to be approved.

Item two, determination of schedule of outstanding committee items, and we have one speaker that signed up to speak.

Go ahead.

I just wanted to advise that at rules a week or so ago, I had identified I would publish the uh council policy directives on the uh city administrators website this week.

Um, or I was supposed to do it last week.

I'm a little behind, so it'll occur this week.

But it will be available for the public to consume this week.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh dedicated $150,000.

The total from the three cities was supposed to be $700,000.

And we we provided the whole payment for the dedication of what happened to give prepare that site for training.

And how did that happen?

And what I'm saying in one example is are we fiscally responsible when we make decisions about money spending?

And I'm saying we are not all the time.

So I would like to see a report on that seven hundred thousand dollars, whether we committed to spend the whole 700,000 dollars, or was Alameda and Berkeley supposed to be in partnership to make the total payment from the three cities.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair that concludes all speakers on this item.

Okay.

Um is there a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion made by Councilmember Unger, seconded by Councilmember Brown to accept the determination of schedule about standing committee items as is.

Unger?

I won?

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number two passes with four eyes to accept the determination of scheduled by standing committee items as is reading in item three.

Adopt a resolution initiating the fiscal year 2026-27 assessment process for the City of Oakland landscaping and lighting assessment district, and authorizing the city administrator to order a preliminary engineer's report, and we have one speaker that signed up to speak.

Okay.

So the staff, please go ahead.

Through the chair, I'm Jose Sehura, principal budget and management analyst in the finance department.

The City of Walkens Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District, also known as the LAD, was established in 1989 to fund the maintenance of landscaping, lighting, and related public improvements.

Under Proposition 218, we can levy the LAD assessment amounts annually, but we cannot increase the rates without going back to property owners for approval.

The last time the assessment rates were updated was in 1993.

This action does not increase or approve assessments today.

It simply initiates the required process and technical analysis needed for future council consideration.

Specifically, it authorizes the city administrator to request the start of the corresponding preliminary engineers report.

This is step one of three in the legally required annual process to levy the assessments.

The second step at a future council meeting will present the engineers report, and city council will declare the intent to levy the corresponding assessments and set a public hearing date, which will be the third and final step at a subsequent council meeting, uh, which will confirm the report and approve the assessments at that time.

The assessments must be submitted to Alameda County for inclusion on the fiscal year 2026-27 property tax roll by August 10th.

We have our consulting assessments engineer, Francisco and Associates available through Zoom, and we can take any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, no questions from me.

This comes to us every year, and I appreciate the timeliness um of bringing this forward.

Uh colleagues, any questions?

Councilmember Wonk.

Thank you.

Um, how much is the tax for this?

So the assessments have been being uh completed.

Um, this is the uh this initiates the process so that the um our assessments engine assessment engineer can um analyze and um determine what the uh assessment rates will be this year.

I know that um roughly uh it generates about 19 million dollars uh annually.

Okay, and what's the current rate before we do the newest new evaluation?

Sure.

I didn't I just couldn't find it in the report.

Okay, I don't know.

Okay, yeah, I'll I'll follow up afterwards.

I I guess my main concern is really just that um I have noticed that there's been some diminishing services on like the street lighting side.

Um I'll take, for example, the necklace of lights around Lake Merritt.

That was something that uh we had wanted to get fixed, and urgently so because there's you know safety implications and whatnot around uh the park, and uh as I understand it, there's only one lighting engineer uh who is actually uh working on these things.

I see lights flickering.

Actually, the lights are finally on, but now they're on during the daytime, too, which is like I'm pretty sure they weren't like that before.

So I I'm just noticing that there have been issues with our lighting services lately.

Um, and I keep on hearing from constituents too about street lights, they can't get fixed, and it takes months to repair them, and I'm wondering if that's a budget issue given what we've talked about with HR, or is this um the the positions have been budgeted for, we have requisitions for them, but we just haven't filled the positions through the chair to Councilmember Wong.

Um, so the LAD pays for both lighting and landscape services across the city.

The there are three different zones, uh, and there's different assessment rates within the three different zones.

If you want to know that sort of as a general way of it's set up, so zone one, zone two, zone three, there are slightly different assessments that are proxy than that.

What Mr.

Segura mentioned earlier on, this tax has not had an increase since 1993.

The value, and it does not grow year to year.

It's the same sort of flat amount every year.

The value of services we're able to purchase for it erodes every year.

So uh we may have cost increases for staff.

It led also responsible for paying things like electricity and water, it keeps up with no none of those costs because there is no CPI escalator in the LAD itself.

LAD does pay for lighting.

I will note that it pays for the salaries as well, it sounds like lighting uh it's any of the operations, so it's uh it can be water, power, uh the lighting, the repair of it, and there are a lot of it is part though, is also park maintenance and other things related to that as well.

So it is uh an eroding resource, and I would say just for clear clarity, it pays for street lighting, traffic signals are a separate topic.

So those are two different services, street lighting versus traffic signals, just uh in that space.

And as we go through your mid-cycle budget process, and as you hear your two next reports on LAD, because LAD is a three-part process in order to initiate every single year, you will get more information on what it does and how what it pays for.

Okay, okay, great.

And this assessment should actually evaluate what is the level of service that is needed, and therefore the assessment that needs to be levied.

It's not not how that works, unfortunately.

It is noting what is because what is eligible to we will go through the process as is noted under the California code, but the assessment that we can levy is capped.

Okay.

Councilmember Broughton.

Excellent, thank you so much.

Um, I I guess my first comment um just to Councilmember Wong, you should um you should meet with Michael Patterson who is kind of over like some of the things that you mentioned, and he'll share some of their staffing challenges, is just something to keep in mind.

Um, I had a quick question about the timeliness of the engineers report.

Um, I don't believe that I was on finance committee uh last year during this time, and so I did a little bit of research as far as like when the uh engineers report kind of came to this body, it looks like it was on the May 6, 2025 um agenda.

And so I was curious, I guess, through the chair um or to through the chair to the administration.

Um, is this uh will we be able to generate this engineers report within like I guess the next 30 days or or when is this due back?

Our current um intent is to bring the uh second report, which is the intent intention on May 12th, so it would just be one week behind um last year's schedule, and we do have um built into the schedule where we do um anticipate that we'll bring out three reports prior to the fiscal year including.

Okay, excellent, thank you.

Okay, many public speakers calling in the name that signed up to speak on item number three, Miss Asada Olabala lights.

No.

Okay.

So the report written identifies that this involves a property tax.

You as council members have to at some point evaluate the weight of property tax as it contributes to the revenues of this city.

There is an imbalance of responsibility of people who live in this city who own property, taking care of providing revenue for this city, and it's unfair.

So here's another property tax to finance our city parks, grounds, our landscape mediums, open space, pools, custodial services.

Now where I have issue is in your race and equity statement, you say that you provide improvements to all residents and non-residents parcels.

There is, if anyone would go out and evaluate how parks look in this district, how mediums look in this district.

There is no comparison.

Some are almost if you go down Bancroft with my churches, it's ridiculous how the medium looks.

Yes, just nod your head.

Yes.

Okay, I had a tree fall on my car, $700 worth of damage, one of your trees.

Okay.

Uh to you three years ago.

So we do not have we have trees that are leaning, going up Keller, and we do not have equity and fairness as it relates to this.

And you can't put it on paper that you are doing a way all residents and non-partial residents maintain safe, well-kept streets.

That is not true.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Ms.

Olabala chair.

That concludes all speakers on this item.

All right.

Um I will entertain a motion.

Um I'll move the item.

We'll second that.

Thank you.

We have a motion made by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Council Member Wong to approve the recommendations of staff and to forward this item to the May 5 2026.

Uh City Council agenda on roll council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger.

Aye.

Wong?

Aye.

And Chair Rama Chandron.

Aye.

Thank you.

The item passes with four ayes to forward this item to the May 5th, 2026.

Uh City Council agenda on consent.

Um to the Madam City Clerk for the next three items with the budget advisory commission members like to make a joint presentation on all three items.

Okay.

Should I read?

Or and if so, we can read them all in together.

If BAC members are present.

Okay, I'll read them all together, but we just have to take a separate vote on each one.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay, we're reading in items four, five, and six together, just noting that we will require a separate vote on each item.

Item four, receive an informational report from the budget advisory commission on the recommendation to amend the consolidated fiscal policy to re redefine excess uh excess real estate transfer tax revenues.

Item five, receive an informational report from the budget advisory commission assessment and recommended recommendations of the fiscal year 2025 to 27 city budget process.

And item six, receive an informational report from the budget advisory commission on the proposed 2026 40 million dollar parcel tax measure to support essential city services and fiscal stability, and we do have a number of speakers on each item.

Thank you.

And to the commissioners, um, do you have PowerPoints for each of these or will this be an oral presentation?

I do have a PowerPoint, which we can use for items four and six.

I think item five, the budget recommendations are just oral presentation.

Can I send the PowerPoint somewhere to get it uploaded?

Is that K Top at Oakland CA?

Great, I'll do that right now.

Um, whenever you're ready.

Did you get it?

No, not yet.

All right, well, go ahead and get started.

Um, and we'll wait for the presentation to come through.

It's all just more material from the memo, just pulled out to make it a little bit easier to read.

So I'll be talking first.

I apologize before you begin.

Um, would a total of 15 minutes um be sufficient?

Five minutes prior to flexible.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So my name is Ben.

I'm the finance and management liaison from the budget advisory commission.

Um thank you for taking the time this morning to hear our recommendations on the amending the consolidated fiscal policy to refine redefined excess real estate transfer tax, um, our recommendations on the budget process, as well as the recommendations on the previous discussions around a June uh 2026 40 million dollar parcel tax.

Speaking to the first item, item number four, the proposed amendment to the CFP to redefine excess real estate transfer tax.

A little bit of background material for anybody listening.

Oakland levies a transfer tax on all real estate transactions.

Um to 40% of this transfer tax revenue each year is derived from commercial and multifamily real estate.

At the bottom of page one in the memo, top of page two, you can see a table showing the fiscal year 2019 2020, um, revenue amounts by sale by transfer tax banned.

So you'll see that for properties under 300,000, the statutory city rate is 1%.

There are about $53 million worth of sales in that band in FYI 2019 20, and the real estate transfer tax revenue from that year was 54, 540,000.

Um you'll notice that the bulk of the revenue from the real estate transfer tax comes from properties in the 300,000 to 2 million dollar band, which generated 46 million dollars in transfer tax in 20 uh 1920, and in the 5 million plus dollar band, which is 2.5% rate generating $36 million.

The real estate transfer tax is highly volatile.

It varies a lot year to year.

Ah, thank you.

We can go to slide three here.

Or yeah.

Uh highly volatile year to year due to variability, especially in commercial and multifamily uh real estate property sales.

Thank you.

So you might recall from the last slide, we had about uh 46 million in, I'm gonna call it single family home sales revenue, and then it was 10 million, oh sorry, it was uh 36 million in multifamily or commercial real estate property transactions.

This is 2019, 2020.

In FY23, 24, we saw a slight downturn in single family homes to about 39 million dollars, so about seven per seven million dollar drop.

But the large properties, the $5 million plus dropped by almost 10 over by uh over 20 million dollars into 10 million dollars in total revenue.

So 80% of the volatility in real estate transfer tax revenue is due to changes in high value property sales, namely commercial real estate and multifamily.

And this happens during economic downturn because those buildings are worth a lot less.

Following COVID, we have something like a 30% office vacancy rate, and so office vacancies are high, commercial real estate is worth less.

Similarly, apartment rents have not been increasing as much, and so those property values are have gone down a lot.

The city of Oakland first adopted a real estate transfer tax policy in June 2009 during the Great Recession when they realized that that transfer tax revenue was gonna was dropping a lot, and they defined any excess transfer tax as any amount greater than 40 million.

This is back in 2009.

In December 2014, that excess amount was redefined as 15% of general purpose funds.

And in 11 of the 15 years that followed, the real estate transfer tax has fallen short of that 15% of the general purpose fund threshold.

So in most years, the city has no excess real estate transfer tax available under the current policy because the current policy is set up in such a way that what's excess is a really, really high threshold.

So our recommendation is to basically go back to the style of recommend of policy that Red Oakland first adopted, which is to have uh amend the CFP to define excess real estate transfer tax as anything greater than 70 million dollars adjusted for inflation.

This recommendation is based on sort of two key considerations.

One, as mentioned, basically all the real estate transfer tax funds right now are budgeted in the city's general fund revenue expenditures and programs and plans.

And that means when you have an unexpected shortfall due to a pandemic or just changes in activities in Oakland, you have to cut programs and services.

And that's never any fun, as I'm sure you've all experienced, and uh it's not a desirable outcome.

It's also a critical equity issue because people come to rely on those programs and services that are funded by this inflated real estate transfer tax revenue, and then we cut them back and people times people are most needed, it makes it a lot harder for people to cope with that.

And then the other issue is that there's no excess real estate transfer tax available to replenish reserves.

When we draw down reserves in a fiscal emergency, we need to replenish them when times are good, and the times are good when real estate transfer tax is high, and so we really want to be able to use some of that excess higher level transfer tax, replenish reserves, build up the reserves, in order to provide a main maintenance and stability during those downturns.

So this chart shows what it would look like under the two scenarios since 2011.

Um you can see the green line is the actual realized real estate transfer tax revenue.

Uh that's the green solid line.

The orange dashed line is the current consolidated fiscal policy threshold, the 15% of general purpose fund revenues.

And then the dash and dotted purple line is the recommended threshold based on our proposal here.

It's slightly higher than was originally adopted in 2009 because I think it was 2017 or 18.

Oakland moved to a tiered transfer tax structure.

So there is more revenue overall available than was originally originally available in 2009.

But this approach would help make sure that revenues are stable in line with current budgeted plans and policies.

And then there's excess real estate transfer tax revenue available to replenish reserves and build up a healthy healthy fund balance in order to maintain services during downturns.

So no action is required right now, but we will expect to work with finance department on this, among other proposals to be come back to you for a more consolidated update later in the year.

Happy to take any questions now, or we can wait till the end of the presentations.

Wait till the end.

Sure.

Sounds great.

Okay.

And then we're gonna go ahead and jump to item six and or do you want to do it?

Okay.

We're gonna item six while I'm up here and then we'll switch to Larissa talk about the budget process overall.

So the next one is recommendations on the June 2026 40 million dollar tax measure.

Um we understand that FMC previously considered a 40 million dollar parcel tax for the June 2026 ballot discussed in September and October of 2025.

While Oakland is no longer planning to put forward a measure on the June 2026 ballot, there's been a citizens initiative put forward.

These recommendations were prepared in December and are still relevant for future measures and other considerations.

So I'll go over them briefly here.

So the recommendations we had for future taxes, which I think apply broadly, are to look at progressive ways of tiering the tax structure.

So rather than a flat tax that applies to all households equally, look at ways to consider things like parcel size or improve square footage, or from multifamily properties, number of units to have different breakdowns for, for example, larger homes or larger multifamily buildings have a higher tax rate than smaller ones.

Since you can't do an actual market value, this is sort of a proxy for that.

Um looking at independent oversight.

I think this wasn't discussed in the city's original proposal.

The citizen initiative included it, and we would recommend generally looking for an independent oversight approach with any new tax, either a new or existing commission doing oversight.

Uh for civic engagement, we thought it was especially important for any June measures that are coming out at the same time as the city's budget to be very aligned with civic engagement around the budget process because we imagine that as citizens are being asked to pay pay for a new tax.

They're also looking carefully at the budget coming forward and thinking about how is these, how are these gonna work together, what's going on here.

They're paying a lot of attention.

And then the other suggestion we had was to make sure that any funding you're using for a given that's as coming from a given measure is also aligned with other goals.

So one example was we considered suggesting lead-based paint uh abatement as a potential use of funds for the parcel tax as a safety and health and safety improvement.

We were thinking about whether ADUs or new constructing new construction ADUs should be exempted from the parcel tax to avoid discouraging new housing construction, those kind of considerations.

We also had a couple of future considerations for the city look forward overall in terms of either future measures, ways to improve the budget overall, or other improvements to the city processes.

So looking at whether square footage parcel taxes could be feasible to do in the future more broadly.

There may be some data updates required for that.

You know, you need to have improved square footage data from the assessor's office or locally collected, which might be challenging to collect, but maybe worth the investment, enable more progressive tax structures in the future.

We wanted to recommend looking at ways to make existing funds more efficient.

So we heard an item earlier in this year about I think it was the children's and youth fund, um, and just generally recommend evaluating earmarked funds and maintenance of effort requirements to ensure those voter-approved measures, which may have been from decades ago, still align with current budget priorities and community needs, and consider ballot measures to go back to the voters to adjust to those either allocations or maintenance effort requirements, where you think that the city should spend its money differently without raising new taxes overall.

And then another future consideration here was to streamline procurement to increase competition and bidding and reduce costs to the city, leaving up more money for other opportunities.

And then we had one more general set of considerations about growing the tax base overall.

Um we had some concerns that the city of Oakland is a lot of missed opportunities with all the vacancies, you know, vacant store fronts, um, not much housing development going on right now, and so looking at ways to increase economic development to provide a larger tax base to begin with, generating more revenue without needing to raise new tax rates, looking at ways to relax restrictions on new businesses, such as through zoning changes, fast tracking permitting, investing in neighborhood centers and business improvement districts, and then expanding a calendar of only in Oakland events to promote vibrancy, attract visitors, and reduce tax leakage to other neighboring jurisdictions.

I'll pass it off to my colleague Larissa, who will talk about the recommendations of the budget process, and then we'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning.

So my name's Larissa, and I'm a member of BAC, and also a member of our ad hoc education and engagement committee.

So just gonna provide a little bit of context on what I'm doing here today, as you know, the consolidated fiscal policy mandates that the BAC provide the city council and city leadership with an assessment and recommendations on our city's budget process.

We give you all feedback, evaluate the outreach and information by the city based on 10 specific principles.

These principles are on the second page of your memo, the memo and your packets.

And these principles include inclusive design, authentic intent, transparency, inclusiveness and equity, informed participation, accessible participation, appropriate process, use of information, building relationships, and community capacity and evaluation.

So these are the 10 specific principles that we looked at when we assessed the budget process of the city.

So wanted to let you all know each commissioner attended at least one budget town hall, and several of us attended more than one town hall.

We attended the informational budget forums, and several of us also uh presented at and participated at different community meetings around the budget.

The BAC also solicited feedback via email from residents about their own experiences around the budget and the budget process, and we also hosted a community meeting, a commission meeting at the 81st Avenue Library, where residents came and also gave us feedback on the process.

So our recommendations um reflect that uh feedback.

So overall, um the 2527 process was a significant improvement.

And I have to share one story about one of our commissioners who came and shared with us that uh when um they read the intra mayor's um budget summary, um, they said that they were almost moved to tears, quote unquote, um, because the summary was really honest and very direct about our budget deficit, and um seriously felt like uh the information in the budget could be trusted and felt like the city was being uh very direct about what was happening.

So that was a huge improvement.

Um of our recommendations in the former uh cycle, the 2325 budget cycle, was to inform residents of the process prior to the mayor's budget actually being released.

And really, I think this was a significant um improvement because this actually did happen.

BAC was able to participate or um partner with the city administrator's office as well as Spur and the League of Women Voters, and hosted two informational budget forums, one at the main library and the other at 81st Avenue.

Um, well attended, well received information was really great.

You know, translation, um, participation.

There was a lot of participation, there was a timeline around the budget process, and more than anything, residents had a lot of questions about the budget deficit and what was going on, and there was a history and background that was offered at those informational forums, and that was really great.

And the city did a really great job of updating its information on the website.

And several staff from finance department as well as the city administrator attended those forums and were there and answered every question.

And I think that that really reflected very well on the city.

So that was really great.

Um was very proud.

I that the BAC was very proud to be part of that process and those forums.

Um, so areas of improvement.

So we know that residents are really feeling a lot of um, they're increasingly disconnected from their government, elected representatives.

You know, we know that this is true, especially for BIPOC communities.

And um, it's critical that we demonstrate through our actions the residents' voices are generally being heard and valued.

And I share this, you know, because uh it's really important that we listen to what residents are sharing with us.

So areas of improvement.

Uh begin community engagement earlier, even though we started the budget process um in March and April, we should begin it earlier.

Uh town halls, the district town halls should be made accessible by default, provide interpretation by default, offer flexible scheduling.

Um, a lot of them were in the evenings, really hard for families and seniors to attend.

Host multiple locations per district.

Our districts are really large.

I know my district is both in the hills as well as well as the flatlands, and it's really hard sometimes for folks in the flatlands to actually go to the hills, especially if they're transit dependent, and vice versa.

So think about possibly hosting multiple town halls per district.

Share budget materials in advance so residents can come prepared.

Um, allow direct dialogue between residents and city council members.

So at the town halls, really great work.

They were all consistent, same agenda, everyone knew what to expect.

Um, there were small groups and pair activities, wonderful.

Community building, great.

Um, but not everyone had an opportunity to actually share their own priorities directly with their city council member.

And so we heard back that residents really wanted to have that direct dialogue with their elected official.

Um people felt that there were index cards and um, you know, you shuffle through the index cards, uh, don't want to ask the same question five times, but from the residents' perspective, they felt like they were being censored.

So, you know, folks want the mic and they want to hear have their voices heard literally.

Um, so we heard that multiple times.

Um, communicate clearly about how resident input is going to be followed up on.

Use brief surveys after each event to capture real-time feedback.

So this could just be like a postcard with a couple of questions.

And then lastly, we heard quite a bit um feedback about the budget being approved three weeks before the deadline.

And understandably, this was both you know, on one side of the coin, it was celebrated as um a wonderful thing that happened, and on the other side of the coin, residents felt like um the budget had already be been predetermined, didn't feel like they had um access to their elected representatives, and had planned on um communicating with you all in those three weeks about their budget priorities, and felt like that opportunity to um uh participate in the process had been cut short.

So that is that.

Um, let's see.

So, overall, it was really um great.

A lot of uh progress was made in informing residents.

I think our challenge collectively and our goal is to really move beyond informing residents and really including residents in the budget process and in budget decisions.

Our ad hoc committee, the um engagement and education committee will be sharing information throughout the year about the budget.

Um we're in the mid-year cycle, so no rush.

Um, we're planning another community meeting uh at the 81st Avenue Library to get input from residents again, and we're gonna be beginning uh to work on our survey as you on.

One moment through the chair to the presenter, the 15 minutes is up.

Would you like to send the time?

Actually, we added three more minutes.

Oh, I'm almost done.

But just to I'm done just to say that you know, our work is always done is best when we do it together and collectively, and so I'm happy to take any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Firstly, I want to really appreciate the budget advisory commission.

You are all volunteers to the city, and the amount of time and effort you put into trying to improve our budgeting process, make information more transparent, um, and solicit community feedback is very much appreciated.

Um of the things that I wanted to make a point of doing differently last year, and I really appreciate your feedback compared to the year before this budget process was not having the BAC's presentation come on the day of the final vote at the very end of June, which is what happened the year before.

So last year structuring the process so that BAC members were present at town halls as well as giving reports to council before the very end of June and being able to have those written materials as well.

Um was something that I certainly found helpful, um, and I believe all of us all of us on the budget team right here had had found helpful as well.

Um a couple of um questions going uh well, just commenting on the last item.

Um I appreciate the feedback, and it's it's very heartening that one of your commissioners felt very felt that it was refreshing how honest this process was, and I have to give a lot of appreciation to our finance department, our city administrator, for bringing in for ushering in a new era of transparency when it comes to our budget realities.

Um, and I think that helped instill a lot more confidence than in past years, at least since I've been in this role about where we are and where we have to go with the limited funds that we do have.

Um I also want to appreciate the mayor's office for helping the whole town halls process be a little more interactive.

There's with such little time and limited attention spans of everyone, everyone participating.

I know there was we wanted to do so many different things, and I fully hear that even with limited time, how can we build in more time for direct community feedback?

I think that's something to consider in the future, or longer town halls or part ones and part twos.

Again, I know the finance department primarily that puts on these presentations and their time is limited, but I think you know, with limited time and resources, these are all very important things to consider moving forward in this year's pro mid-cycle process and specifically the next next year's biennial process where there's typically more structural town halls in the in the two-year budget process.

Um back to the first part of the presentation with the RETT recommendations.

Um I again, I think this is very valuable feedback in that historic context is very helpful.

Um I did want to ask without putting our finance director on the spot too much, if you have an opinion on this.

Um, well, A, when is the consolidated fiscal policy coming back?

And is the RETT, is changes to XS RETT something that you're considering.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, we did have a chance to evaluate the BAC's proposal.

I don't we would like through the policy evaluation process to be able to bring you several options related to RETT, but that is definitely a topic we'll want to look at.

I do think ensuring that we are fully funding our rainy day fund, um, which is funded through this, along with uh providing extra resources to pay down long-term liabilities is a key space and moving to a flat number might be a more stable way of predicting that on the future.

So it's definitely an option that we'll look at as we go to that.

Uh, we are looking to do the CFP revision this fall, uh, along with lots of other ones.

So this is a topic I would note for everyone uh to be aware of related to RETT, there is a qualified statewide initiative that would potentially enhamper our ability to collect this revenue source in general, and so we need to also give consideration as we're developing a policy.

What would our both overall budget pool but also our resource for funding our rainy day policy and our unfunded liabilities look like in absence of this mechanism in total, so that's part of a broader analysis that we need to look at.

Thank you, colleagues, council member Brown.

Excellent.

Um and so to uh not to go too far off of what um our administrator um Bradley was um mentioning.

Um, is there a timeline that we would be receiving some of this feedback?

Again, we're targeting sort of the October time span.

Uh, and if this body is interested, the foundation for what we'll be looking at are the informational updates that were brought to this body two years ago uh on updates to the CFP.

There were a number of items that were done on an informational basis.

That is our starting point.

So we're looking at October though.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Um, through the chair on to um our uh amazing um BAC members.

Um just thank you.

Um I can't emphasize enough just how um how much gratitude that I have for um your volunteerism.

I think that you know this commission is uh definitely one that uh the impact and and also the work, it's it's very high level.

And so I'm I'm just so grateful for all of the the work that you all put into ensuring that um you know both community feedback comes forward as well as um what are some of the recommendations that the commission is working on, and so just really value the feedback.

I just wanted to highlight that you know I've had the opportunity to uh kind of take in the budget process both as a community member, as a staffer, and then now as an elected official, and um I think it was interesting in 2025, keeping in mind that you know that year was just it was such a unique year, right?

With um just leadership within the city of Oakland, right?

And just the changes that all of us new council members really had to come into.

And so, even in all of that, um, I I feel that the um feedback was positive in a way, um, and also um definitely value the recommendations that um that you all kind of are put that community members provided us.

Um, and then I also just want to give um, you know, amazing cute kudos, and I I think I've mentioned this before, um, but kind of what council um chair Ramachandra mentioned around um just the support from the office of the mayor, finance department, um, the administration, in order to really like uh uh bring us all up to speed and what was needed, and so um can't, you know, can't thank everyone enough.

And I think that um just the feedback that was mentioned in the report around ways that we can continue um to improve the process.

Um, I hope that we're able to incorporate those, whether that's even putting on some virtual town halls.

I think that that could be um a tool that we should utilize um as well, because kind of to the the reports point around you know, folks not really feeling comfortable to come out in the evenings, right?

Um, and just the the difference between different areas, both in the flatlands, downtown, etc.

Really wanting to make sure that we have a truly um engaging process.

Um so I really appreciate that feedback for sure.

Um, and then the one question that I did have, I think you mentioned briefly that there is a community engagement set uh session coming to the 81st Avenue Library.

I was curious if you had the time and date for that.

We don't have the timer date just yet, but we'll definitely let um city council know.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Then council Mr Long.

Great.

Thank you for this work.

I am also frequently moved to tears when Bradley presents me with his budget numbers.

Um questions about the the CFP.

Once we put something in the CFP, how do we I mean if we if we then have to ch make changes later, is that via resolution?

Is that something that looks bad to rating agencies if we're constantly going back and forth?

That's correct.

Um so there's two elements to there's the CFP itself and changing it and this consolidated fiscal policy to not use the acronym too much, is an ordinance that governs your structures, your budget process, your reserve policies.

And so changing it is an ordinance that requires two readings within the CFP itself, you have the ability to waive provisions, and that's typically by resolution at the time.

So changing the CFP, changing your definitions within it, the kind suggested by the BAC regarding RTT is an ordinance change.

And no, you would not want to change your policies on a frequent basis, which is why we want to look at them collectively this fall and sort of take one stab at updating them all across the space, strengthening them, which can be a buff to us going into the rating process, uh can be helpful.

Um, and should you choose to waive them due to circumstances at time, the provisions for doing that are spelt out in the policy itself.

And then I mean, obviously, I completely agree with the philosophy of not using one-time revenues for ongoing uh expenses, is putting that in the CFP just a way of sort of saving us from our future selves.

I mean, what we we could do that without putting it in the CFP.

That's I would say is an accurate statement as to why it sits there.

Okay.

And I mean, generally in budget making flexibility is more, I mean, from my perspective, probably from your perspective, you would like us to be less flexible.

I would prefer us to be able to have some flexibility.

Um, can you imagine a situation in which sort of limiting ourselves in this way ties the hands of budget staff or you so depending on the context of how one would change if we're speaking specifically around the RETT policy as to use the example that was brought up uh by our BAC commissioners, were you to have that uh staff would have to construct but uh budgets based upon whether or not policymakers want to live in accordance with that structure or wave it.

So you do, and we have waived even the 15% threshold policies, like we have gone through the process of waiv them.

I think um Mr.

Gold mentioned that we were under the threshold 11 out of 15 years, but if you look at the four years we were there, I think in many of those years we may have waived the provisions that were tied that would have tied our hands in those years too.

As a rule around flexibility regarding both the CFP and your voter approved measures, which is in the second rec uh report that BAC give, the finance department's position is that you should always have a mechanism by which to have flexibility should you need it, because we cannot perfectly predict the future.

So in any revision to the CICFP or anything coming forward, we would imagine that we would recommend a mechanism by which you could waive its provisions.

But what the provision itself should be to maximize stability in normal years is a separate question, and that's one we'll want to evaluate along with the side of the commissioners.

Okay.

And then just one sort of request slash challenge for the the budget advisory commission.

Um, you know, in that one of your final slides was about growing the economy and ways we can do that.

And I would just ask that the more specificity we can have, the better, because you know, people always come to me and say, hey, we should grow the economy, and I say, Great, I love it.

But like what is what does that actually mean?

And so I think one way that you could be helpful to us is as you look at other cities, you know, if there are policies that you think we we can uh adopt IE steel, um, I'm happy to do that.

So the more the more detail and and specificity, the more helpful the commission will be.

Thank you.

Counselor Councillor Walk.

Um yeah, really want to just um you know echo my colleagues' comments on the amazing job that you guys have done.

Um really thoughtful recommendations here.

Um I hadn't noticed in one of the attachments is the recommendation to explore, I believe you're saying existing ballot measures to adjust um some of the earmarked funds allocations.

Uh and as I understand it, uh Director Johnson or is it administrator Johnson?

What's the uh okay, Director?

Um as I understand it, we can adjust those fund allocations without going back to the voters uh as long as we're not raising taxes, correct?

It depends on the specific specificity of the ballot measure itself.

So on a legal basis, some of your ballot measures, and we I would defer to the city attorney, have requirements that are built in non-severably to the measures where you cannot adjust them.

Some of them are more flexible.

Uh some of them it's a matter of interpretation as to what the restrictions of the ballot measure means.

Um, what I think though the BAC is referring to is regarding the maintenance of effort requirements in those ballot measures, most of those would require you to go back to the voters to adjust.

So utilization of resources, a separate question, sort of MOEs.

I think the BAC was speaking about some of the MOE provisions as well.

And a little bit a little bit of both, got it.

Yeah, is that what you all were referring to?

Yeah, so I can speak to this microphone's on.

There we go.

Um, so without making specific recommendations here on the dais, we have identified areas which are worth further investigation as to whether council wants to maintain the current ordinances and structure or whether it's worth asking the voters.

A few examples.

I believe the 1997 children's fund measures is in the charter item, which requires 3% of the general purpose fund to be set aside for children's related programming.

There are a lot fewer children in Oakland today than there were in 1997, and our general fund has grown faster than inflation.

So we are now spending a lot more per child than we were in 1997, which is maybe not aligned with the original intent of the measure.

Another example is the two parcel taxes for libraries plus the maintenance effort requirement mean we spend about 50 million dollars a year on libraries.

Other cities like Sacramento and Long Beach, which are bigger cities, spent about 25 million a year on libraries.

So we spend more on libraries than some cities of similar size.

Um there's some other some other similar items I think like that where it's maybe worth considering are there ways to deliver similar or better services at lower cost?

Are the measures that were passed 10, 20, 30 years ago no longer aligned with what they originally intended to do?

Um would the voters like services reallocated within the city without paying higher taxes as an opportunity to consider saying, hey, voters, you approved this tax 20 years ago, maybe we should have spent it on this instead of that, better meet your goals without changing taxes at all.

So we think it's worth discussing and considering this for the future without making any specific informations about anything I just said.

Those are just things we've said we've seen that because I guess there could be opportunities to look at this further.

Yeah, I and I completely agree, and that those examples are helpful.

Um then the other question I had was just around the progressive parcel tax structure.

Um I know that last year uh director Johnson and I did ask about this, and I think in your report, since I had uh wanted to know about what a progressive parcel tax structure looks like, you had broken it down by single family homes versus multifamily versus non-residential units and a recommendation.

And um I I I was wondering, you know, the square footage-based parcel tax structure.

Is that something that sounds like Berkeley has done that?

I think in their report they mentioned it would just require some technology.

Does that match up with your own assessment of what is required to implement a square footage based uh progressive parcel tax structure?

So as we're as it relates to doing a parcel tax allocation on the basis of square foot, Berkeley does do that.

We've gotten some caution from city attorney around whether or not pursuing that as in is our most secure mechanism.

So I would I would note that probably not for this uh space to have that conversation.

Uh however, exploring alternate mechanisms that are eligible within proposition 13 and 26 for parcel taxes is something we would look at.

It would require additional information and potentially additional cost to administer.

So that was one of the things that we would want to make sure we're aware of and looking at too.

Um and should we decide on a mechanism to change that, similar to what Mr.

Gold was stating as it relates to looking at both the spending elements and MOEs for a prior ballot measures, it's also a question as to whether or not you would want to harmonize your prior ballot measures as well in terms of their collection methodology.

Having desperate collection methodologies does improve uh creates sort of additive cost and enforcement issues across them, and that's a similar conversation I would have you around exemptions related to the ballot measures and the similar sort of thing.

So that's I would suggest that if you were gonna have a conversation around this the ideal structure, there's a legal question, there's an administrative implementation question, and there's a question of whether or not you want to harmonize them both on the collection methodology and the exemptions.

Okay.

Um that is that's helpful.

Okay.

Uh and then one other one other question I have actually to the budget advisory commission.

Have you ever seen where in progressive parcel tax structures, especially?

I think I have as much as I'm a proponent of it.

I also have some uh worries that, for example, people living in multifamily unit apartments that the taxes can be passed on in the form of rents to uh tenants.

Have you seen that happen?

Yeah, so Oakland's uh rent stabilization ordinance, I believe generally precludes the ability of landlords to raise their rent.

However, due to Costa Hawkins with vacancy control, rents return to market basis when people leave.

Additionally, market rate market rate, uh sorry, non-rent controlled units like new buildings we see in downtown and so forth are not such a residualization ordinance.

And so parcel taxes, whether progressive or flat, likely generally end up being passed along to renters in some way, shape, or form eventually.

Whether it's it's not usually itemized as the workers taxes right now because the new parcel tax was passed.

Um, usually, even if it's you know a few hundred dollars a unit over the course of a year, it's not a significant increase in rent overall.

Um, but they do generally are they're considered generally to affect the market for rents.

So, yes, that's part of the reason recommended a structured approach.

And one of our considerations that we included in the memo was that looking at, for instance, if you're doing a flat parcel tax, you can structure it so that you have you know a different rate for small one to four unit buildings versus larger, let's say 50 plus unit buildings, for instance, right?

Which are generally reflective of older rent controlled buildings versus more modern market rate buildings.

So that was one of our considerations, even if it's a flat rate, structuring it like that.

That's the question.

It does.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We can move to public comment.

Um, and since we are having three items together, if depending on the number of items you um signed up for, you were allotted that amount of time.

Calling in the names that signed up for items three, sorry, four, five, and six.

Um Kevin Daly, I have you signed up for three of the items, you'll get a total of six minutes.

Missado Oldabala, I have you sign up for three of those items, you'll get a total of six minutes.

And David Boatwright, I have you signed up for two of those items, you'll get a total of four minutes.

In no particular order, you guys can come up to the podium and make your comment.

I appreciate the presentation today.

There's one issue of tax, it's state tax and income, which we haven't been looking up.

I brought it up in front of council member Wang last week in the ILC.

That's the gas tax.

And as we're moving to more electric vehicles, the number of my of gallons sold year over year is dropping.

There's a bill AB 1421 in the state assembly, which is looking at the vehicle miles travel tax.

And I think Oakland needs to follow that closely and find out how to move it forward.

It has another advantage that as Waymo is coming into the city.

Waymo has a habit of driving around empty in San Francisco.

There's no way to legally tax a Waymo that's empty as long as it's running on electric fuel.

But this would allow possibly taxing the vehicles as they drive around if we don't do the network tax on all Uber Lyft Waymo type vehicles, but that requires a vote.

Thanks for looking into that.

David Boltride District 4.

I just like to say the uh BAC is a very knowledgeable group.

I go to a lot of uh of these uh uh commission and board meetings, and I've never seen anybody dig into the details like they have and be able to speak so spontaneously as they have.

So they'll did a great job.

The other thing the only other thing of substance I have to say is these uh forums before the budget is approved are very very important for each district, and I would support 100% that those are continued and that there is more interaction as the BAC recommends, uh more opportunities for the uh residents to uh participate in those meetings and get information before the meeting so they're fully educated when they come to the meetings.

Thank you.

So I don't know if you're aware, but when people in a community try to participate at meetings, sometimes that participation becomes very limited, and one way it becomes limited is there's a presentation, there's an opportunity for questions and answers, but that process of questions and answers can be limited, and how that happens is this way.

You are required in some cases to submit your questions ahead of time.

If that doesn't happen, you are required to write your questions down on a piece of paper or card, and when they do that, you can see people going through the courts, picking out the ones they want to answer, and not necessarily just piling them and and at will giving them out, and that selective prejudice process needs to be eliminated.

So if you want participation by people, it should be a fair process and not one where you control the participation and the kinds of questions you want to deal with.

Now the question is resident and citizens, this keeps coming up.

You choose to use resident and replace citizen, and you have to qualify what is a resident, the state of Cal of California said you have to live in the state at least uh a year.

You give out an ID card for residency uh in Oakland after a couple of weeks.

I'm not gonna go into detail, but you are so in engage with illegal immigrants having an opportunity to participate in in the city that should take all kind of shortcuts, including the school district, where they don't allow for background checks for volunteers in their schools.

So what is this ballot measure E?

As it relates to a citizen's initiative, one of the things is this petition process, somebody's got to take the time to inform people who are signing these petitions what you should be prepared to do.

One of the things you should be prepared to is to ask them to see the official uh top funders sheet that's supposed to be on every petition, because you want to see who is given the money for this petition, and people don't know this.

Another thing is you ask, is this are you a volunteer or you're being paid?

Another thing is the full text must be available.

When people come up to me for a petition, I ask to see the full text.

They never have it to give it to you, and that's required by state California law.

Another thing is Measure E is not a citizen's initiative, or it could be a citizen's initiative, if you determine that being a part of a union can also be classified as a citizen's initiative.

And if that's the case, corporations can put on initiatives.

So measure E, and I'm surprised this group of people didn't take issue with the union funding is completely legit.

That's a historical piece that unions fund initiatives.

But to call a union a citizens initiative when people who are in the union are not all of them are citizens, not all of them are residents of Oakland.

So is the definition of a citizen union initiative?

Is that a percentage of your what is the qualifying?

There's something called the ballot measure qualifying process, qualification.

What is the qualification for a union to put a measure on the ballot?

I can't find it anywhere.

But one thing is for sure, everybody in that union has to be a citizen.

Everybody in that union has to live in Oakland, because that is a crucial piece of what identifies as a citizen's initiative.

You have used tricology by the unions putting this on the ballot for the 50% plus one requirement, rather than the 66%.

If you we put it, this is a city of Oakland measure, a conniving measure, a sneak through measure that y'all should have addressed.

So about time is uh up.

No, it's not, but I'm finished.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

That concludes all speakers on three items.

Okay, thank you.

Is there a motion?

Move approval of all three items.

Is that sufficient?

We'll do three different votes.

Okay, sounds good.

Okay, for item number four, we have a motion made by council member Brown, seconded by councilmember Wong to receive and file this informational report in committee on role council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger.

Aye.

Wong.

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number four passes with four eyes to receive and file this informational report in committee.

On item five, that was a motion made by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Councilmember Wong to receive and file that informational report in committee on role council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger.

Aye.

Wang.

I and Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number five passes with four eyes to receive and file that informational report in committee.

And item on item number six, we have a motion made by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Councilmember Wong to receive and file this informational report in committee on rural council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger.

Aye.

Wong.

I and Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number six passes with four eyes to receive and file this information report in committee.

Reading in item number seven, receive an informational report on the results of the salary survey for city jobs, city job classifications earning less than $25 per hour.

And we have two speakers that signed up to speak on this item.

Thank you.

Um to the staff, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.

Jamie Pritchett, principal HR analyst, human resources management department.

Today I'm providing an informational update on city classifications with at least one salary step below 25 per hour.

This report is strictly informational and does not include conclusions or recommendations.

As requested, human resources reviewed all city classifications and identified 39 active classifications with a minimum rate below 25 an hour.

These include roles such as crossing guard, library aid, a recreation leader, and lifeguard.

Across these 39 active classifications, the city employs 898 employees.

That includes 42 full-time, two permanent part-time, and 854 temporary part-time employees, most of whom are represented by SEIU Local 1021.

A large portion of these temporary employees support seasonal programs, recreational activities, and trainee-level positions, where staffing needs may fluctuate throughout the year.

28 of them have a maximum step at or above 25 per hour.

This means that although these roles start below the threshold, a significant portion, approximately 72%, progress above it with tenure and experience.

Typically, when a salary study is performed, the focus is on the top of the range.

And that is because employees generally spend the most of their tenure at the top of the range.

In this case, council did not specify whether we should focus on the top or the entire range or the entry step.

To ensure we met the intent of the request, we identified classifications that had any step below $25 per hour.

For the market review, the study examined 24 unique titles across 13 agencies based on external comparisons where available.

Of the 24 titles, 10 had enough external matches to summarize compensation trends, while 14 did not have sufficient matches for meaningful comparisons.

Looking at the salary data overall, we found a mixed picture.

Some classifications fall below market rate at their starting steps.

However, there are also several classifications where Oakland is at or above our peer agencies.

For example, roles such as lifeguard recreation leader to and park attendant compare competitively or better than the external averages.

Overall, the results show a varied landscape.

This report is intended only to present the data as requested.

Any further analysis would require additional research.

That concludes the informational update, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Since the two of us were especially interested in this item, $25 an hour is not a living wage in Oakland.

It's not anywhere near that.

And while other cities, corporations, etc.

nonprofits all need to catch up to what is a living wage, which is far beyond that.

I think that when it comes to hiring and outcomes for a number of these positions that serve key community groups, it is important that we're able to hire quality folks who can use this to support themselves as a living.

And I give the example of the item that I the issue that I took with probably my third month into this job three and a half years ago, and that was Head Start workers.

The fact that you can make more money at Panda Express than as a head start instructor is unacceptable, and partly one of the reasons why it's hard to recruit.

I know HR does do continuous recruiting for these head start instructor positions, but I think the fact that we offer such low salaries, pretty much minimum wage as the starting salary shows why we have limited capacity to fully staff up our head start program, which is why they're leading to underenrollment despite there being so much need in the community.

I think there's different arguments for part-time seasonal positions, and I hear what what you're saying of the comparability with other jurisdictions, but it doesn't matter if you're a library aide, a firefighter trainee, a van driver, or a Head Start worker, you deserve to be able to get close to a minimum to a living wage working with the city of Oakland.

And I hope that in our in the in our budget process in years to come in the next few years, we can start to raise the minimum for all of these positions to at least $25 an hour, but certainly more as the starting threshold.

But we should be setting an example for jobs that are able to fund people's livelihoods, which for 900 employees of the city, they're not.

Councilmember Brown.

Excellent.

Um thank you so much, Chair.

Um thank you to the HR department for putting together this comprehensive report.

Um, I'm I'm I'm not remembering the exact item that was before us where we kind of had this.

Well, I had this larger question of how can we get a clear picture of how many employees in our city are making 25, you know, below 25 an hour.

And so I think that the agenda report that was put together and the everything that was shown very comprehensive.

And I think it provides us a clear um roadmap of where we should go as a body.

And so I think that it oh, and then also I had this thought around like ensuring that we're in tra attracting um uh Oaklanders to these roles.

And I think that the best way that we're able to do that is by paying a decent wage.

And so I hope that you know, uh either if it's all of us who are on the budget team again, or um I hope that in the future we can begin to um create a pathway so that all of these positions at minimum are 25 um in and up.

Um I think that there's an uh another initiative being led by I think some Oaklanders around $30 being a livable wage.

And so um I think that we we have to begin to move and move in a much better um direction around how much we are you know um paying folks for these amazing jobs that we have within the city of Oakland.

Thanks so much for providing the the data around uh how many total, I think it was a little over 800.

Um I know this isn't in the report, and I hate to put you all on the res on the spot, um, but I like to um the way my mind thinks is like in percentages, and so um how many total employees do we have in the city of Oakland?

Through the chair, we have approximately 5,000 employees.

I see, and so of that 5,000, a little over 800 um are making less than 25 an hour.

So hopefully we can uh make some do have some positive steps to to change that.

So thank you.

Councilmember Wong.

Uh thank you, and thank you to my colleagues for um bringing this agenda to this committee.

Um I am just wondering what what are the steps to actually adjust these?

Is it through the department heads?

How do these salaries actually get through the chair?

The conversation about uh amending compensation is most often held at the bargaining table through negotiations, and so I would defer to the council and the administration to have those kinds of conversations and then sort of subsequently direct staff to either provide research and analysis and make recommendations, or even perhaps enlist the use of an external consultant for additional survey work.

So there are multiple options ahead of you procedurally, it would come before you as a salary ordinance amendments, which you see those come from our department periodically to amend the ordinance one, two, one eight seven, but that can only occur following necessary mandatory bargaining obligations and satisfying any and all uh sort of meeting obligations.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

And then um I would say one of the positions or two of the positions rather that really stuck out to me were the firefighter uh trainees.

Um I think it says here the paramedic trainees make around 2283, and I'm seeing from our peer cities, you know, hourly rates of you know, 44 to you know, upward of 50 to even 60 um dollars uh per hour, and then um for the trainee $19 per hour versus again like 44 to 55.

And um were you able to see like are are we hiring like that's a significant difference of of magnitudes?

Um can you comment on that?

It just uh that one was the biggest delta in my observation.

Sure, through the chair.

What we found at many other agencies is that the firefighter trainees lead into uh they're actually a sworn position, so they actually come in as a firefighter and they have that sworn designation, where for our particular trainees, they are not sworn until they graduate from the academy and then enter their firefighter probationary positions.

Okay, and so you're pointing out that perhaps a fairer comparison is the salary that they make after they graduate.

Okay.

Potentially, or for us to just divide the data so you can see which ones would be in a sworn capacity versus a non-sworn capacity.

Okay, I I would like to see that um since uh I I at least want to be working with a fair apples to apples comparison.

Thank you.

Um we can move to public speakers.

Calling in the names that signed up to speak on item number seven, Kevin Daly and Mrs.

Sado Olawala.

Kevin Daly, uh the co-chair of the policy and legislative committee of the bicyclist and pedestrian advisory commission.

Uh we visited Oakland Fire Station 17 and to follow up on Councilmember Wong's uh comments.

We did hear that the trainees spend a substantial amount of time with low income, and that can be a challenge, especially if we want to convince the trainees to stay in Oakland or move to Oakland and stay there as we continue.

Uh well as we go through emergencies, whether it's fire, earthquake, or just the day-to-day emergencies, which they deal with all the time.

So thanks for looking into it.

I I'd like to see a report on all salary uh that is under the banner of incentive pay.

So I know it exists within the police department that if you I think if you speak a language other than uh English, you get incentive pay.

I know that people who work under the translation and uh banner is some kind of incentive pay.

So where else do we have incentive pay?

Where we need incentive pay is with our police department.

If you are a police officer living in Oakland, we give you incentive play.

We have to do something to work on 90% of our police officers don't live in Oakland.

That is a serious safety concern.

Any kind of emergency where you need everybody on board, we got people that live up in Sacramento.

Uh some we have even have people that don't even live in the state in the fire department as well, incentive pay to live in the city.

Uh so I don't know uh this overtime issue has to stay on the uh agenda as far as how we are creating ways to control overtime.

Uh what are the recommendations from staff?

We keep getting reports that it's going on, but we haven't had uh what is a recommendation to control overtime.

I haven't seen it, but I have seen repeatedly it's a problem.

But I would like to say that it is unfair that you can work at McDonald's, and what is it now?

Is it 25 or 30 dollars an hour?

And we had an initiative on the ballot for people who work in our thank you for comments.

Okay, thank you for your comments, Chair.

Chair, that concludes all speakers on this item.

Okay, um I will entertain a motion.

And would that be to receive and file?

Yep.

Okay, I'll second that.

Sorry, one moment.

Sorry, we have a motion made by council member Brown, seconded by councilmember Wong to receive and file this information report in committee on role council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger?

I won.

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

I thank you.

Item number seven passes with four eyes to receive and file this informational report in committee.

Now reading in item number eight, receive an informational report from the city administrator on their desig or their designee on the special revenue collection project, including hiring and activating the work to bring in additional revenue from non-filed businesses, and we have three speakers that signed up to speak.

Receive an informational report from the city administrator on their design or their designee on the special revenue collection project, including hiring and activating the work to bring in additional revenue from non-filed businesses, and we have three speakers that signed up to speak.

Thank you.

Good morning, Nicole Welch, Revenue and Tax Administrator.

I will bring to you an informational report in response to a request from Councilmember Brown and Rama Chandron, Chair Ramachandron, regarding the statistical data that supports the special revenue enhancement collections.

However, going to the report page two in January 20th, 2026, we brought 2,269 accounts for property, which resulted in liens of $1,583,524.10 cents.

This was specifically targeted towards the business tax renewal.

And then we've actually pivoted to landlords advising them of their obligation to, if they are renting out their property to register and pay Oakland business tax.

We had followed that effort up with sending out 75,000 postcards.

I believe that a lot of you are probably received that informing you as a PSA that if you are renting your property in Oakland, you're required to have a business tax license.

But those are on target that it's actually happening.

And that completes my report.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate the deep dive that you've all taken in the past year to get to get money owed to us from business owners.

I've seen, you know, I regularly complain about the lack of marketing and outreach, but I have to say I've seen quite a lot of the message pay your business taxes out there, and I greatly appreciate that.

Um I had had a quick question.

I see the amount that's been leaned for property-related business taxes.

How is the other side of collections going for non-property?

We have actually wrapped in because of the timeline in December.

We opened up the business tax renewal on December 10th, 2025.

We rolled in the delinquencies for the previous years into this so that we can do it in an all um encompassing process.

So that will begin in June.

So right now we're at the process of uh, I would call it a term of dialing for dollars.

So where we're actually calling property owners and business owners and advising them that they need to, if they are still operating, pay their business tax or close it out.

Um we have seen with our efforts, I would draw your attention to page three, that with our outreach, we have received an increase, a triple increase in property owners who have registered their properties.

So we've gone up significantly from one uh fiscal year to the next fiscal year, so that is actually increasing.

Um we have actually gone out, and this will be part of the next report as a task force with in this weeks to council member Wayne's concern about businesses who are operating.

We went out as a tax force with the um ABAT unit, the state board equalization.

I believe they have another name.

Um, but we are in also uh the uh Alameda County Department of Health.

We went out last Thursday to inform educate and also in some cases cite business owners who had been warned previously.

So we are actively in the community, um, and that is where we're we're at right now.

Great.

Um, a quick question and a comment.

Um so as of if I remember the timeline correctly, as of March 15th, 16th businesses are delinquent, so or March 2nd, I forgot.

Okay.

And then they can apply for an extension till the end of March or something like that.

The if you are going to request an extension, you would have need to done that before March 2nd.

The extension date was April 15th.

That's when you would have to have filed.

Fortunately, at that time when I did speak to you in November, there were only 59 businesses that requested an extension.

So the number has decreased significantly, and the reason why is because there is an ability to actually renew online.

Great.

And I just want to point out the numbers in table two.

The rental applications going from 288 to 900 in this past fiscal year just compared to two years ago.

That's not the number of property owners all of a sudden sudden tripling.

This is clearly people registering and listening and consuming information that's being presented of we need to reg, we need to start paying, we need to register as a business and start paying, and that's substantial.

And I look forward to the revenue that that's gonna help generate for the city.

So thank you.

Um councilmember Brown.

Excellent.

Um I'll be brief.

Um thank you so much for um the written report and just really um appreciative of the ability to track the progress here.

Um and so just wanted to express that, and then I guess on that note, um, can you share when the next update um will come to us on this?

I know um you gave us a good timeline of uh notices going out, May June.

Um, when can we re expect um some more like follow-up on how um the progress is going on this?

Um I believe that it would through the chair, it would be under your direction of when you would like the next report to come.

Okay, excellent.

Um that sounds good.

And so I guess uh to the chair um on this item.

I guess I have two notes.

Can we um if we're able to bring this back again?

Can we change the chat title?

Um, ensuring that I'm also kind of a co-author on that instead of um former council member Kaplan.

Um, and then um maybe we can have this come to us in the fall, if that seems most appropriate.

Um through the chair, my recommendation at this time would be to receive and file this report and then schedule a new report uh as needed in the fall, or put that on the pending list for a new item uh just to close out the prior iteration of this version of the informational report.

We can also update the sponsors at rules.

Um, but at this point, it seems like it's it's time for a new item.

Okay, sounds good, thank you.

I would be supportive of both of those things when this comes back to to rules.

Uh yes, we would be happy to work with you guys on the title for the update report and timing so that we can get it appropriately agendized at the right time.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Council Murk.

Uh hi.

Um, I would just request in the next upcoming report uh because just reading this, I see that we have uh the total value of the liens that we also see the delta and additional revenue uh being collected.

So that would be super helpful, but also want to commend you on the work, seriously, and carrying this out.

We will have in any of the revenue that would be recognized will be in the third quarter revenue and expenditure report.

So um I did not want to deflect away from that report that will be coming to you in May.

Okay, okay.

Um whatever notes can be added within that report, just on what difference you're seeing as a result of these efforts would be would be great.

Um, and then just so I understand this.

I see the single family residential being noted.

Is this essentially properties that are being rented out for the purpose uh just rented single family residential?

This is what that is.

Yes, okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, um, we can go to the public speakers, calling in the names that signed up to speak on item number eight, David Boatwright, Asada Olawala, and Kevin Daly.

This concept of looking at additional revenues is real important.

So I just want to say we got one of those postcards, and the first thing that came out of my mouth is who's gonna voluntarily admit if they haven't been doing it in the first place.

They're just gonna say, oh, now I got the card.

I'm gonna go ahead and admit that I'm not paying my business tax.

And I know people that are not paying, not for any other reason except they just can't pay.

So additional revenues.

I'm gonna give you an example of additional revenue.

There's something in the state of California called the uh two plus one rule.

It's the occupancy rule that you have to follow based on the fact it has to do with the number of people living in a residential setting can create, if not minimized, health and safety issues, healthy for the persons, health codes, violations, and so forth.

We are not enforcing in type of uh residential occupancy, and it is an issue, and it it comes out even with the amount of illegal dumping that you see on the streets.

Most of those are kitchen items that people don't have.

They have so many people living in a house that they don't have room to put their waste in a can, so they throw it out.

Uh another occupancy rule uh additional revenue uh process.

You got so many illegal vendors out on the street who haven't obtained the proper business license.

If it's food vending, they don't have the health license.

They are violating the sidewalks, that's a fine.

You got a lot of ways that you can create uh license plates in the front of the car after the first warning.

That's a penalty from 190 to 200.

And go go check out the Teslas.

None of them have license plates in the front, or very few of them.

My time.

Oh, I did it good.

I stopped.

I was looking at the clock, so you wouldn't have to say it.

Kevin Daly, I do appreciate that uh you guys are working on getting other landlords to pay their taxes.

I've managed to do it for a few decades now.

It's not that bad, but the website does need to be improved a bit.

It's sort of looks like it's from 20 years ago, and it is a little bit difficult to figure out how to modify things.

I had to call in to figure out whether I needed to make some modifications.

Then I want to move on to the penalties for and fees for fire inspections, which are still not being collected.

I know the city auditor last week said that this said that there is a movement to collect the fees.

But the city has an Acela portal that lets me look at all types of things, permits, fees for fire inspections, whether or not they pass.

I looked at two local CVSs that I've been trying to get them to fix violations for about five or six years now.

I can see they still owe hundreds of dollars.

No, not tons of money, but if I can see the fees, I hope that the city administrator can see the fees as well and get them paid.

Even better would be to get the violations corrected, whether or not it charges additional fees.

Fire exits that have not been opened in five, six years.

It's a potential danger.

So it's not just $500 fees, it's also risk of people's death if there is a fire.

Thanks.

David Bowery.

Uh on the executive summary for the report associated with this item.

There is a reference to hiring the annuitant.

And I I must have missed it.

There was no discussion of whether that position has been fulfilled or uh what it was, but I would sure appreciate it if that could be uh explained a little bit better and why it has to be an a new and not a new hire.

I guess I have experience, but I'd like to hear why that term was used.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Sure, that concludes all speakers on item eight.

Okay.

Um I will make a motion to receive and file, noting that we will schedule a new item at rules to come back in the fall.

Thank you.

That was a motion made by Chair Ramachandran, seconded by Councilmember Brown.

To receive and file this informational report in committee on roll.

Council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger.

I won.

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number eight passes with four eyes to receive and file this informational report in committee.

Moving on to open forum.

And we have three speakers that signed up.

David Boltwright, Asada Olabala, and Kevin Dali.

So money is important, and how we spend the money is important.

And we're making decisions about spending money that I don't think we we're being fair.

We're being political about spending money.

In other words, you have your political reasons to spend money.

Democracy dollars.

Democracy dollars, it originally was created based on a model in Seattle where citizens would be able to create or have access to funding supporting of their candidates.

You had a group of citizens who and residents who came to meetings and push for not being citizens but being residents.

That meant more money had to be spent.

And you're in that predicament now.

Not a good choice.

Why?

Politically, you want to push the the uh narrative that we are not about citizenship, we're about residency and everybody being accommodated.

Uh just happened last week.

You having to give up uh, I think 1.6 million dollars to the Lake Merit Lodge owner because the property wasn't maintained.

We're losing money.

We're not getting the deposit back.

We have other issues where uh having to do with our homelessness.

Uh Lake Merritt Tiny Homes, the West Oakland tiny homes, all of them had to be destroyed because the uh the consortium of the East Bay Management Group didn't do their job.

And I've asked you to look into that.

We have this issue with the tree.

Uh 2021 2022 violation.

We just weigh in on a fine in 2026, and we still haven't worked that out.

That's money we haven't gotten because staff didn't do their job.

The only way that came forward was with planning department when a developmental plan was applied for they notified.

Thank you for your comments, Ms.

Olabala.

Kevin Daly.

This weekend, I was personally hit by the lack of hours and the lack of funding for the parking enforcement call center.

It parking enforcement call center.

Well, this has affected the ability for my mother-in-law to get around my neighborhood in Lower Glenview in District 4.

Uh the call center is only open Monday through Friday and closes afternoon, doesn't open again until next Monday.

So good news, lots of curb cuts in my neighborhood now, so we can get the wheelchair when when my mother-in-law needs it off of the sidewalk and onto the street.

Bad news is there's cars parked blocking the curb cuts.

So on Friday evening, I reported the problem to see click fix and was informed, which I knew of course, that the call center would be back operating on Monday.

So from Friday evening to Monday morning.

There was no one handling the call center.

If I wanted to report that my driveway was blocked by a parked car, see click fix encouraged me to call the police non-emergency number.

But if it's only a pedestrian being blocked, that doesn't warrant it.

I know I could call it, but I also know it probably wouldn't be handled.

So I encourage let's fund the call center.

Parking funding is parking policy.

Let's also keep it at Oak Dot if we can.

Thanks.

David Boatright.

Grants.

This city lives by grants, it looks like, other than property taxes.

And it's amazing that there aren't any more post-appraisals done of any of these grants, regardless of how many dollars are associated with them.

And I think that's something that this council needs to look into and establish some post-apraisal requirements for all these grants that are going out.

It's it's tens of millions of dollars at least a year.

And I can only remember one post-appraisal that was done, and that was done by the city auditor, and it didn't turn out well for the person who received the grant we're gonna live and die by grants, and I hope we don't die, but uh we need to do something about this uncontrolled issuing of grants to many, many different organizations in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, that concludes all speakers on open forum.

Okay, thank you everyone.

The meetings adjourned.