Good morning and welcome to the Finance and Management Committee meeting of Tuesday, May 12, 2026.

The time is now 9 33 a.m.

and this meeting may come to order.

Before taking roll, 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 it 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 33 a.m.

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

We'll now proceed with taking roll.

Council members Brown.

Present.

Present and Chair Ramachandran.

Present.

Thank you.

We have four members present.

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

Um yes.

We would like to move um item six up to be heard first, followed by item three, four, et cetera.

Okay.

Thank you.

Noting the changes made to the agenda to hear item six after taking items one and two.

Now moving on to item one approval of the draft minutes from the committee meetings of March 24th, 2026, and April 21st, 2026.

And we have no speakers on this item.

Great.

Is there a motion?

Move approval.

Second.

Thank you.

That's a motion made by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Unger to accept the draft minutes from the committee meetings of March 24th, 2026 and April 21st, 2026.

Honorable council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger.

I and Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number one passes with four eyes to accept the draft minutes from March 24th and April 21st, 2026.

Reading in item two, determination of scheduled while standing committee items, and we have one public speaker that signed up for this item.

All right, we will hear the public speaker.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, to the uh administration.

Sure.

Um, city administration has two proposed changes.

One is that item number four for May 26th be moved to the June 23rd Finance and Management Committee to accommodate staff's availability to present that item.

Thank you.

It's already on the pending list.

We'll update it and bring it back for January twenty-seventh, an odd year.

Great.

Thank you.

Calling in the name that signed up to speak on item number two, Mrs.

Sado Olabala.

Hey, through the chair, I don't want to assist the city administrator Baker.

Just wanted to get a clarification on item five.

That's for May 26th meeting.

We're looking at the item two.

We're on item two right now.

Okay.

We're going to be behind time, publicly talking about the shortfall of 360 million dollars.

Is it still there?

Where are we?

I'd like to see at some point a report on your commitment relationships or contractual arrangements with nonprofit organizations.

That financial commitment that you have with Feather River Camp, the Oakland Zoo, Fairy Land, the Oakland Ice Rink.

I think you have a lot of financial commitments that we can't afford to keep those commitments at this point.

I'm also concerned with the Coliseum deal.

So when are we going to have a discussion on where we are with that Coliseum deal?

Lastly, a report on where we have had financial commitments and we have suffered a loss because of that.

And I'm talking in particularly like the Lake Merit Lodge, where we came out having to pay $900,000.

Plus we lost the security deposit.

And any other situation where we have had a financial commitment, and because of that, we have suffered a loss.

Lastly, the $700,000 that you committed for the roots training camp to be refurbished when you were supposed to be a part of the total $700,000 for that completion with the city of Alameda and the city of Berkeley, but you ended up paying the whole $700,000.

We can't be in a financial situation where we're doing these kinds of things that are dysfunctional.

Thank you for your comments and incompetent.

Chair that concludes all speakers on this item.

Thank you.

I will entertain a motion.

Move approval of the pendulus.

Second.

Thank you.

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

On roll council members, sorry, as amended with the following amendments.

Withdrawing item number four from the May 26, 2026, um Finance and Management Committee meeting to the June 23rd meeting and withdrawing item number five.

With no new date.

Receive an informational report from the city administrator on the status of implementing policy directives passed by the city council, and we have 22 speakers that signed up for this item.

Thank you.

Before we begin, we are keeping the full two minutes per time, but in the interest of getting through our eight items today, if folks are interested in speaking together or otherwise, that would also be appreciated.

Thank you.

And how many minutes does staff require?

Three minutes.

Okay.

Good morning, Chair Ramachandran, Council members, members of the public and staff.

My name is Monica Davis, Deputy City Administrator.

I'm here to share a report on the status of implementing our council directives.

City Council directs our staff to assess or implement specific policies, programs, or performance targets, and report back at a future date with findings, recommendations, or proposed implementation plans.

This primarily occurs during the city's biannual and mid-cycle budgets.

This report provides updates on the policy directives from fiscal year 2021-23, the biannual budget, and that shows up as attachment A.

Attachment B is from the mid-cycle budget of fiscal year 22-23.

Attachment C reflects the updates for fiscal year 23-25 and the biannual budget.

Attachment D reflects updates for the mid-cycle budget for 24-25.

And then attachment E is the most recent update for fiscal year 25-27, the biannual budget.

You'll note that the refreshed information contains an asterisk next to the policy directive number in the first column of each respective attachment.

You know, the comprehensive input for these materials are provided by multiple department heads, and so we'll try and answer your questions and happy to follow up as needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, questions, or shall we move first to public comment?

Okay, we'll move first to public comment.

Thank you.

Calling in the names that sign up to speak on item number six, in no particular order, you can come up to the podium, state your name before beginning.

Kevin Dally, Chase Fowler, Asado Olavala, Annx, Millie Cleveland, Terrence, Keon Bliss, Blair Beekman, James Birch, Micah Amichai, Triva Hayden, Sean Jones, Ben Ganberry, Eric Erico, Emila Moore, or sorry, Angela Moore, Rain, Robert Sean, sorry if I'm pronouncing names wrong.

Kirby Olson, Khalila Hayes, O'Fernie, Labadien, John Tran, Bibi LeGarter, Elliot Goodrich, Ruth Mesa, Russalney.

And if you are ceding time to anyone, please let me know ahead of like once you come up to the podium.

Just let me know who's seeding their time, and they must be in chamber.

You'll get one minute of their seated time.

Good morning.

Rain Robichot and Afore Benadian will be seeding their time to me.

Okay, just give me one moment to go ahead and adjust your time.

You'll have a total of four minutes.

Two of your original and two one minute each from the two that seated.

You can go ahead and go ahead and begin.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Elliot Goodrich.

I am a transportation planner in the paving program at Oak Dot and also an Oakland resident.

Thank you to the committee for bringing this item today.

Listen, OPD spends more of the city's general fund than every other non-fire department combined.

So when we look for tweaks and efficiencies to ease our budget issues, we should look to OPD first.

Fortunately, our thorough and impartial city auditor has identified various actions that the city leadership can take to save the police department and the city millions of dollars.

The first action is related to contract negotiation with OPOA.

The administration must bargain with Oakland's tax dollars in mind.

There are specific changes that need to be made to the OPOA contract, including setting comp time policies consistent with other forces in the region.

These are really basic changes that should not be controversial.

And if they're not reflected in the final contract, you should assume that the negotiations were not in good faith, and you should reject the contract, really.

The second action related to the state administrators' report today is to ensure that the city civilianizes at minimum the 38 OPD just job positions that have previously been identified.

38 more officers on the street would increase the effective presence of the force by 6% and cut into the $55 million this force spent on overtime last year alone.

You need to hold the administration accountable for actually making this happen.

Of the 38 positions identified, 22 are in internal affairs.

OPD is still under federal oversight.

The negotiated settlement agreement is a legally binding agreement that the city made to 119 Oaklanders who had their civil rights violated.

Well, the latest independent monitors report stated that we have serious concerns regarding the operations of the department's internal affairs division.

Civilianizing IAD positions should be seen as a direct tool for a just for finally making Oakland's repeated demands for a just and transparent police department a reality.

This council can and absolutely should be the one to finally end federal oversight.

As an aside, I want to thank interim chief Beer for putting a pause on all discretionary overtime.

I wish there was a way to see that this was indeed happening, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now and look forward to seeing the next overtime spending numbers.

I also want to highlight that in relation to the city auditor's recommendations for OPD reform.

He stated to you all on March 10th that we do not disagree.

Let's hold them to that.

To do this, we need to get HR to get their act together.

As a reminder, the real staffing crisis is not in OPD, which has an 11% vacancy.

It is in Local 21 and SEIU 1021, which have vacancy rates of 25% and 20% respectively.

Public safety looks like more than police officers in cruisers with sidearms.

It looks like functioning street lights, parks and libraries that are clean and open when people need them, and it looks like safe streets.

These services are actually cheaper to provide than policing, but you as council need to continue to put consistent quarterly pressure on human resources to fill vacancies as they have been instructed.

Thank you.

Civilianization is not an easy word to say, and I didn't really know what it meant when I first heard it.

But it's a really important public safety tool because it'll put sworn officers back on our street and help us save money.

There are at least 38 positions whose duties have been previously identified to be by non-sworn city workers.

So civilianizing positions will help Oakland balance the budget by saving OPD costs, and civilian positions are cheaper.

It'll allow officers to do work during their regular shifts, doing the work they were trained to do, while saving uh overtime, the amount of money we spend on overtime.

Because OPD logged 400,000 hours of overtime last year, which spent us 55 million dollars, which again is more money than a lot of things we spend on the rest of the city.

So every dollar that OPD uh can save is dollar that we can spend on public services, like fixing our streets, keeping our street lights on, um fixing potholes, keeping recreation centers open longer for kids to play at.

Um, it helps to uh maintain our trees and our parks.

Um, so all of these things are very important, and I think a lot of community members really care about.

Um, so again, in order to deliver these services, we must fix our vacancy crisis.

Um, city human resources needs to be fully staffed so we can fill these vacant positions, including those in the community police review agency.

Council must continue to demand accountability from human resources for its failure to hire staff.

And finally, there are outstanding city auditor recommendations, which we mentioned earlier for specific changes to the Oakland Police Officer Association's contract.

These are best practice provisions to limit excessive overtime spending.

The time is now for the city council to ensure these changes are included in the OP OPOA MOU.

And council should be prepared to reject the contract if it does not meet the minimum bar.

For your comments, your time is up.

Yeah.

Morning, my name is Chase Fowler, and Truda Haddon is sitting in her time to me.

Okay, just give me one moment to adjust your time.

You'll get a total of three minutes.

And you can go ahead and begin.

Morning council, my name is Chase Fowler.

I'm here today as a proud member of IFPT local 21.

I'm also a civil engineer at Oak Dut.

I'm here today to ask City Council to stand up for itself.

How many times will you at the Oakland Police Department and City Administration thumb their noses at you?

Time and time again, City Council has asked city administration and the police department to implement one of the most common sense, no brainer, win-win-win proposals out there.

Take cops out of civilian jobs, put them out in the street where they claim they are so desperately understaffed that they racked up $55 million in unmonetize unmonitored overtime spending last year.

Just to reiterate the benefits for everyone in the room, they are threefold.

One, less cops in cubicles means more police officers out in the streets doing actual police work.

It means cheaper workers doing the work.

Cops are really, really expensive compared to civilians.

And third, civilian oversight of police eliminates a perceived conflict of interest and increases public trust in our police force.

The council's budget policy directive, the last budget cycle was extremely straightforward for city administration to form a task force by the end of June of this year and produce a plan and a timeline for the transfer of internal affairs to the CPRA.

Instead of putting a task force together, what did we get?

I'll quote from the uh the report that city administration put forth.

Due to current staffing limitations and the structure of the CPRA, this change is not anticipated in the foreseeable future.

Doesn't really sound like a task force was even convened, does it?

The call for civilianization dates back to 2008.

That's 18 years ago.

Since then has been reiterated many times by many city councils and in many budgets.

City council needs to demonstrate actual leadership here.

That will not be easy.

OPD desperately wants to cling to these positions to the detriment of the city's fiscal health and to the services Oaklanders need and deserve.

It's time for city council to hold the city administration to account.

Convene the task force and produce the deliverables that were already requested.

No more wishy-washy excuses about why it can't be done.

Bring city administration to this committee every month for progress report if that's what it takes.

Do you want this to actually happen or not?

Need to take accountability since the city administration has so consistently failed to do so.

Thanks for your time.

Yeah.

Hello, um, Vale Lagarde has offered to cede her time to me.

And what's your name?

My name is Jean Tran.

Okay, thank you.

Give me one moment to adjust your time.

You can go ahead and begin.

Alright, my name is Jean Tran.

I'm an assistant engineer with the DOT, and I came here on behalf of Local 22 to talk about the police overspending.

And when I looked at the city auditor's report, I saw that from 2019 to 2024, there was almost a 10,000 hour increase in admin investigations.

That's an 80% increase, and that's almost 20% of all of the overtime like change in that time period.

20%.

And this is for a position that is for internal investigations.

So like looking into misconduct, looking into complaints, looking at malfeasance, things that we don't need officers to necessarily do.

And I want our officers to be well rested and handling the things that they ought to be handling that only they can handle.

And so I see that civilianizing these positions will help us not only with our officer force being more effective, but also saving us money.

Money that can be better spent into creating safer streets, cleaner streets, like they said, street lights that are actually working, but also creating the third spaces that we need to create a safer community, right?

Parks that people want to spend their time in, libraries that youths can go to and be engaged and stay off of the streets.

Like, these are the things that I want to create a holistic, safer community.

And of course, to do that, we do need to put pressure on HR.

And I really want you guys to keep on it and see if we can get results.

And so whether or not we are able to put that pressure on them, and whether or not we're able to civilianize this force and save us, again, 20% of all of the overtime addition that happened in the last five years.

Like, this is what we're looking at to create a better, safer community.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning.

This is Cleela Haynes with the City of Oakland's planning and building department here on behalf of Local 21.

Um, I just want to echo the claims that my fellow unit members have made so far.

I just want to say that, you know, as a planner, working on engaging communities around the general plan.

We've heard so many people ask for public safety, public safety, public safety.

And so where we can make changes to ensure that our resources are being directed to things that improve public safety, like my colleagues have mentioned improving our parks and recreation centers, improving maintenance at our libraries, and ensuring that where we can save money we do so that we can continue to provide the essential services to our citizens to our residents that make Oakland better and more safe and more livable place to be in.

Thank you.

If your name was called, please come up to the podium if you would still like to speak.

Otherwise, we will go over to Zoom users.

There's more people, I think no lady on my email.

We have another speaker in our what's your name?

My name's Andrea Ramirez, and Linda Morton is seeding her time to me.

Okay, I have you here.

I have you signed up for item three, but you can go ahead.

Give me one moment to adjust your time.

Thanks.

You can go ahead and begin.

Okay.

Um good morning, City Council.

My name is Andrea Ramirez.

I am a planner in the zoning division of planning and building division or department and an IFPTE local 21 member.

Um, I'm here to ask the council to take action on police civilianization and also on the vacancy prices.

Um there are at least 38 positions held by sworn officers that have been non-sworn positions in the past.

These positions could be filled by members of the community, uh people who live in Oakland, um, and it would put sworn officers back on the street to protect and uh serve our communities out in the public.

Um, it would also help balance the budget.

Um, OPD currently um is 38,000 or 38 million dollars over budget.

Um, they've clocked in over 450,000 hours of overtime, costing the city 55 million dollars.

Um, every dollar that we save on OPD spending can be spent on public services.

Um, this includes me and my mother are a resident of Oakland, like senior uh centers can like extended hours would be really helpful for me to like care for my mother.

Um it would help with main maintaining uh parks and keeping um rec centers open to deliver these services.

Uh Oakland must also fix its vacancy crisis.

Uh we need to staff up HR to fill those vacant positions.

Um I know several employees who are part-time employees at the city of Oakland who love the city, want to work for the city full-time, and they may have to leave the city because they want to like you know the benefits of being a full-time employee, and that really hurts my heart because I love the city too, and I want people that I know who love it to also be able to work here and make it a better place.

Um, um, the 2019 city auditor recommendations um should be included in the Oakland Police Officer Association MOU.

City Council should be prepared to reject the contract if it does not meet the recommendations.

Um that's all I have.

Um, my name is Millie Cleveland.

I'm here um uh with the coalition for police accountability, and I stand in solidarity with local 21 here.

They mentioned that there were 22 officers in internal affairs where those positions could become civilianized.

I want to raise that, you know, a lot of people are concerned about being under the federal oversight, and the reason we remain under federal oversight, quite frankly, is because of the misconduct within internal affairs.

Every scandal has been because either not because just of the misconduct, but every scandal has been because internal affairs minimized it, swept it underneath the rug, ignored it.

And that was what actually created the scandal, the misconduct of internal affairs.

In fact, the most egregious case, the most recent egregious case of Fong Tran allegedly briming a witness was not even exposed by internal affairs.

It was exposed by the civilians in CIPRA.

So I want to raise that it's very important to move those uh officers out of internal affairs, move them into CIPRA, and that is your clearest uh avenue for moving out of federal oversight.

So I stand as a resident in Oakland and someone that uh raised my children here in Oakland.

I have family members who work for the city.

It's time for the city council to be responsible and accountable.

You pass this policy, make the city administrator move on the policies that you vote on and bring it back every month and hold the city administrator accountable.

Good morning to the committee.

My name is Kirby Olson.

I have one person seating their time to me.

Their name is Dr.

Jones.

Do I have do I have a sheet for Dr.

Jones?

You have a sheet for Benjamin and Brandon?

Yes.

Okay, so we'll take that instead.

Is it Sean Jones?

Yes.

Okay, is Sean Jones here?

Yes.

Okay.

Perfect.

Give me one moment, Kirby.

I will adjust your time and you can go ahead and begin.

You go ahead.

You'll have four minutes.

Great.

Good morning.

Uh to the committee.

Kirby Olsen, I'm speaking today as a member of Local 21 and an Oakland resident.

I'm also a transportation planner in the Department of Transportation.

I'm here to support the civilianization.

Every dollar saved is a dollar that can be put back into city services.

So we call on the city council to reject any budget or contract that does not include the civilianization.

I also want to address the vacancy crisis.

Last time I was here, I mentioned a transportation planner two list that expired, and the department asked for the list to be extended three days after the expiration, and we're told that that was not possible.

I want to refer back to the MOU with local 21, Section 14.10.2, which says that any time the city declares a hiring freeze, all civil service lists should also be frozen and extended for an equivalent amount of time.

As far as we can tell, that did not happen during the most recent hiring freeze.

So what I fear is that we had a hiring freeze in practice, but no official formal hiring freeze was actually communicated to the unions or to the departments.

What that means is that during the time when no hiring was being approved, all of our civil service lists basically kept going.

The clock continued on those lists, and by the time the informal hiring freeze ended, and it was time for us to hire again, our lists were right at the verge of expiration.

And so that's what ended up happening with our transportation planner two list that we had 60 names on that had to be thrown in the trash and never used.

So I just want to make sure that number one, we ask HR if that list can be retroactively extended, considering they didn't actually extend it during the time of the hiring freeze.

And number two, that we make sure that any future hiring freezes are official hiring freezes and not simply de facto freezes when no one's hired but our civil service lists are essentially wasted.

Thank you.

Am I good to go?

Yes, go ahead and just state your name for the record, please.

Um I'm Terrence Terran's charity.

Um I'm a resident of Oakland and I'm part of the Oakland Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

I'm speaking in support of civilianization of work being done by OPD officers.

Oakland should not be discussing cuts to services until you have replaced officers and administrative jobs with regular city staff.

Oakland should be good stewards of the tax money and to create structural oversight over that and transparent OPD oversight.

A brief reduction in overtime is nice, but not the real solution.

The council told the city administrator to begin looking at civilianization of OPD internal affairs to the cheaper, better CIPRA investigators.

The council did not find out whether the city administrator had taken any steps to follow those instructions.

That is a failure of the city administrator.

It is also a failure of the city council.

These are issues the police union does not want you to act on.

Please start listening to Oaklanders like me instead of the police union.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Reefy Laway.

I'm with the Anti-Police Terror Project, and I'm here in solidarity with my community here to say that you all should make the fiscally responsible decision and civilianize these positions within the Oakland police department to be done by city staffers who are here on the front lines of protecting what it means to reimagine public safety in our city to invest in city resources and services.

That has supported me my whole life.

Uh, right before this meeting, I was down the street at Cafe Gabriela, which has just celebrated 16 years in the city of Oakland.

And when I walked in, they were like, What were you doing 16 years ago?

And I thought about middle school and what Jack London looked like and my experience there, and the reality is that this demand for civilianization for fiscally responsible decisions, reimagining public safety is a demand that's 20 years in the making, right?

Last year's budget cycle, folks in this dais were speaking passionately just to that fact that 20 years in the making community has been trying to work and operationalize this reality, and there are folks in the room who want to be partners in supporting this council in doing so.

So we asked this committee again to just make the fiscally responsible decision for Oaklanders such as myself who's relied on the kind of services you all have put yourself in a position to cut rather than to reimagine what it would look like to invest in the resources that have allowed for us to be retained here in the city, those of us who are still here.

Thank you.

OPD's internal affairs office, it has to change its name every time it's involved in a scandal.

I don't know what the current one is.

Um has been involved in every scandal and every cover-up for the past 20 years, including two in 2023, because police can't police police.

Every city council member on this dais today is developing a reputation for doing the bidding of the police union instead of what Oaklanders ask for.

There are well more than 38 administrative positions that do not require a sworn officer.

You could do a complete review of OPD staffing.

The auditor was on it.

That wasn't what the auditor was doing.

The police union opposes civilianization, although they say we need more officers doing direct public safety work.

OPOA says that civilianization would quote be bad for morale, end quote.

It would be good for Oakland's morale.

OPOA is opposed to real oversight of OPD overtime.

They assure you that overtime is temporarily reduced until it's out of the headlines.

OPOA is opposed to independent, transparent oversight.

OPOA wants weakened oversight.

OPOA does not want a public discussion of their contract, which is currently under negotiations.

The council has not held public discussion, which would include discussing changes requested by Oakland police chiefs.

You need to decide if you're on the side of Oakland or the police union.

Thank you.

Kevin Daly, a district four.

The reimagining public safety task force looked at civilianizing many OPT positions.

It was approved by the council in 2021.

I'd like to see what progress has been made in what positions can still be moved.

One of the suggestions that I think is important is moving the vehicle crash reports from OPD to Oak DOD.

The single biggest overtime expense was half a million dollars for one individual for crash reports, something that should be civilianized.

OPD crash reports are mostly limited to describing which laws are violated and not what the real cause of the crash was.

Speeding only counts when it's 10 miles an hour faster than the limit.

But crashes can be deadly when traveling at the speed limit.

Five miles an hour, it's even more deadly.

Oak Dot has the expertise to analyze the real causes of crashes and should be handling the reports.

I know they analyze some of the crashes anyway.

I believe they do not have access to the speed of the vehicle that crashed, even though that information is pulled from cars from black boxes by police, unless it's a hidden run.

Another item is that the city administrator has blocked hiring of parking dispatch positions.

That's an important part of parking policy.

I recently reported that car block to curb cut, preventing my mother-in-law's wheelchair from getting from the street to the sidewalk.

I reported it on 311 dispatch.

Did not happen because there aren't any dispatch people hired and haven't been in a long time.

Thanks.

Don't finish.

No one will be from the union behind me.

I find it very interesting that all these union people decide that it's their responsibility to hold the police union accountable.

It's their responsibility to go into the policing arena and determine how it needs to be run.

I can take every department in this city and identify issues.

Yes, the police department has issues.

So does human resources, so does park and rec, so does uh workforce development.

But I find it insulting that a union can't meet with another union to have a collaborative understanding where your issues are without coming before the public and beaten up on them.

And I have an issue with the union with measure E.

How you scanived to create a citizen's initiative when it wasn't a citizens' initiative, is the city of Oakland and the union people working with you to get this measure E passed.

What is wrong with people?

We are collective city employees.

It's inappropriate to come here and beat up on other employees.

That's just my position.

Why they doing it, I don't know.

But for there is no department in this city that cannot be scrutinized for some issue.

No department.

So what gives them the badge of honor to come here and beat up on the police department?

Look at Adam, they're cheering.

This is insulting.

It's not what we do to say how we can collectively work together as city employees.

And I don't know why they decided to do this because this is thank you for your comments.

Switching to Zoom users.

James Birch, you can unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Good morning.

My name is James Burch, and I'm the executive director of the Black Solutions Lab.

I want to talk about money.

Oakland is facing a structural deficit of over 137 million dollars.

The city has already eliminated over 400 positions, and reserves have dropped from 1258 million in 200 in 2022 to 157 million in 2024.

Every department outside of police and fire has absorbed deep cuts, and the mid-cycle budget update this spring is likely will require more.

Against that backdrop, the city is spending 13.2 million a year in overtime that it doesn't need to spend.

That figure comes from the PFM staffing study.

This city paid $310,000 to produce an IFPTE and other unions.

Analysis of the 38 sworn officers currently assigned to administrative desk jobs and internal affairs, training, IT, recruitment, and public information.

These positions do not require peace officer authority.

They can be performed by civilian authorities at lower base pay, lower overtime rates, and lower pension costs.

The OPOA contract expires June 30th, and it's not just the civilianization ban that needs to be addressed.

The current contract allows officers to accrue over 300 hours of compensatory time per year.

The highest limit the city auditor found among large California cities.

When officers take comp time, other officers work overtime to cover their shifts, and those officers can also accrue comp time.

The contract also permits shift extensions without prior management approval.

And while that's been uh uh uh uh temporarily addressed by Chief Beer, uh, this is the type of thing that we need to be addressing in contract negotiations as well.

If the city does not begin capturing these savings now, the next round of cuts will fall on libraries, parks, housing, public works, and youth services.

That's the direct fiscal consequence of inaction.

The city has the study, has the directive, it has 20 years of history on this at this point.

What it needs now is implementation.

Who's gonna do it?

Thank you.

Keon Bliss, you can unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Yes, here to echo what everybody else is telling you, and really wondering whether um members of city council uh here today are actually listening to all that.

Uh, recognizing that a lot of you take uh a considerable amount of money uh from uh not uh not just specifically the Oakland Police Officers Association, but also um their uh primary backers in the business community, especially the Oakland uh Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, as well as several AstroTurf um organizations from uh the abundance network to empower Oakland to um revitalize East Bay, all of which um want you to ignore this push to civilianize and actually like and follow your fiduciary duty, uh which is to maintain and use uh like act in the best interest of the public and uh uh provide include responsibility such as transparency and avoiding these such conflicts of interest.

You have credible data right in front of you that are presented by dozens of people, uh, showing that civilianization actually saves the city money.

Uh, and that there are at least 38 positions whose duties have been previously identified to be done uh by non-sworn uh city workers uh within the police department.

Um given that the OPD continues uh to go drastically over budget, uh, with this overtime.

Thirty-one million dollars um run uh over budget um is absolutely absurd.

It's a violation of your fiduciary duty not to think about how to reduce the like this amount of overtime and civilianize these positions.

In fact, it's what you promised uh to do, uh is what Oaklanders have been demanding for you to do.

So rather than just going along with uh whoever is like is paying your campaign coffers, please listen to the people.

Please civilianize these positions.

Thank you for your comments.

Blair Beekman, you can unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Thanks a lot for this item.

A lot of public comment on it.

Uh really nice to hear.

I, in living in San Diego these days, and we've had these tough, austere budget meetings going on.

I've I've lost track.

If I if it was in San Diego or in Oakland.

They want to not be continuing um uh community policing or the ideas of civilians in the police force.

I don't know if it was San Diego or Oakland is doing that, but it what is being explained here today.

I'm being really reminded the importance of what you know, the long-term goals of what we are really trying to work towards of a more civilian police force, and we we're looking we're look working towards the ways to do that.

Um thank you much for your initial memo that had outlined your the initial four policies of how you want to be working as a city on issues, and um, you know, community uh involvement and participation.

Uh I can't quite remember the list, but it was really nice to hear.

I I wanted to say, and I just um good luck what you're working on.

Uh it's important stuff, and I I hope San Diego can be doing the same thing.

I certainly will be talking in San Diego uh public meetings what what's being said here.

It's important issues about this the streetlight ideas and how that can help, and ideas of better efficiency for policing.

As important as that efficiency can be, um, there's a lot of accountability that's needed with our smart streetlight tech.

And it isn't uh it has to be a balance in wanting streetlight efficiency compared with the practical concerns of privacy, civil protections for people, uh, not just in terms of public safety, but in terms of privacy rights.

Uh all of that has to be worked out.

So good luck in working together on this.

Uh, it's a together process.

Uh good luck what we can be doing all together.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, all names have been called at this time.

Thank you.

Um, a couple of things appreciate all of the many people who came here to make public comment.

Um, this entire committee here was the budget team last year, and that directive that you see most recently about the civilianization asks, that is all of us here plus a majority of council that voted for this.

Six out of eight council members.

So um I have a couple of questions for the administration.

First and foremost, I just want to read out that policy directive that the four of us here authored last year, and that's direct the city administrator to work with police department and HR and return to council with the detailed plan costing and any necessary budget amendments to increase the number of OPD positions filled by qualified civilian staff.

Every effort must be taken to ensure that as many sworn OPD officers as possible are available for patrol, special operations, or conducting criminal investigation.

Shifting admin and other non-law enforcement responsibilities to civilian staff will help will help further this objective while increasing employment opportunities for Oakland residents and ensuring great greater cost savings for the city.

We also direct the city administrator to form a task force to facilitate implementation of council direction to transition the functions of OPDs and internal affairs division to CIPRA for investigations.

The task force should include representatives from council, city attorney's office, city administration, police commission, OPD CIPRA, and the Inspector General.

The task force should produce a plan and timeline for the implementation of this transition by June 30th, 2026.

In addition, transferring IID functions to CIPRA would remove any conflict of interest that might exist within OPD officers investigating their fellow officers.

Again, this is now we're entering my fourth budget cycle, and everyone that I've been a part of, we're talking about civilianization.

I think it's around 38.

Um, but last year we explicitly included this with the goal of June 30th.

So I would love to hear from administration because the response that's written here doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Yes, there's there's always staffing challenges.

There's staffing challenges in HR, which is responsible to address the staffing challenges of everything else.

We're never gonna we have over 800 unfilled positions.

We're not we're not there yet any time soon, but for you know, for so many years at this point, um, council, even before we got here has been asking for civilianization and and even if it's not all 38 positions tomorrow, what is the barrier that's getting us towards civilianizing, you know, a couple per month, maybe, and then getting to the 38 by the end of the year.

To the chair.

Um, so you know, as as you're aware, we're currently in ongoing labor conversations, and so some of this is being discussed at the table, so I can't get into the specifics of it.

Um recognize that the task force hasn't been convened, and I think part of that has been the resource allocation piece.

And I would have to say that city administrator had personal matters not able to be here today, but happy to have him also provide more context.

So, apart from the staffing challenges, is there an answer as to why none of the 38 positions have been civilianized?

Again, it we're currently in labor negotiations, and so some of this context is within that framework, and so can't get into the specifics of that.

Okay.

I just do want to say for the record if if council is passing something publicly, and there are barriers to having it passed.

I would appreciate if administration, city attorney, auditor, whoever else is involved tells us straightforwardly, hey, this is not possible.

Rather than us continuing to pass policies and us be frustrated and the public be frustrated.

I mean, yes, this is part of our issues with our city charter.

The council doesn't have power to implement policies we actually pass.

But this is a bigger issue of there's been so many resolutions authored by this council as well as previous councils, and we just don't have answers.

And if they're not possible from the get-go, please let us know so we don't pass things that need other levels of reforms to get there.

Um that being said, up my own my own other question for moving to my colleagues is last year.

I'm proud that this budget team, as well as again, six out of eight of council members supported the transition of five civilian positions from OPD officers to civilians.

These positions weren't OPD to begin with, they were tasked and coded as civilian jobs, and are but there were OPD officers performing it because of the lack of hiring, which is unacceptable to have five fully capable officers of being on the street instead being in desk jobs, and um I want to know the status of hiring this more.

I check the city jobs page every single day.

So I think this morning I saw one of those five was listed online, the intake technician for OPD, but I'd love to know the status of what this council has said should be well is already a civilian job.

They were intake tax, fleet compliance coordinator, forensic analyst.

There were five positions total, and what the status of each of those five are from the budget we passed last year.

I don't have that answer on the top of my head, but I can provide that to you and post it again on the um along with the informational memo I posted with this content.

Thank you.

If if there are if we held this item in committee, would we be able to get more answers to the civilianization questions with the city administrator being here?

And I think we could probably speak to it at closed session and then determine what we can discuss publicly.

Okay.

Well, I would be interested in holding this item in committee, but I will pass it to my colleagues.

Council, well, sorry, Councilmember Unger Brown then Wong.

What specifically are the barriers in the contract?

Because I I don't see it.

I mean, some of these positions were civilian before and are now being filled sort of temporarily by sworn.

So so what specifically are the barriers in the contract.

I'm going to uh jump in for deputy minister Davis here.

There are some provisions in the contract that relate to the work done by OPOA, and again, I'm going to be very circumspective.

We should have that conversation in closed session as it relates to the negotiations going on.

So I I can see that with with some of the positions, maybe there are meet and confer, but not all of them are subject to that before we civilianized.

And so I I don't want to, I don't want to just sort of give this blanket answer of the contract prevents it, because the contract might prevent some of it, but I don't see that the contract prevents all of it.

So I would love to move forward with the with the civilianization of the positions that are not uh blocked by contract negotiations.

Do you think that there's a way we could do that prior to June 30th?

I think I'd have to discuss with the city administrator on his priorities of what needs to happen.

Um I think it's a possibility.

Okay.

I I think that would be a real show of good faith and progress.

Um if we could civilianize some portion of the positions that are not subject to contract negotiation.

So that I think that that's my um ask, and I probably think that my colleagues would agree with that if we could just start start the process because the issue of this being barred by labor negotiations is made a little weaker by the fact that council has been asking for this civilianization through multiple renegotiations of the police contract.

So if if the renegotiation is the problem, why are we allowing it to remain the problem through multiple rounds of negotiation?

And I will note there are a couple pieces moving through in collaboration with HRM and OPD.

So for example, as noted, the um criminal investigation and traffic divisions are working to support the movement of the criminal investigator position.

So there are ongoing efforts.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I it it is frustrating for us because we continue to put this in our budget, we continue to put it in our directives, and then um, you know, the public comes to us and says, Hey council, how come you didn't put it in your budget or your directives?

Well, we did, but the administration has to enact our directive.

So if we could begin to do that prior to this next budget cycle, that would be a real show of progress that I would value very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um before going to Councilman Brown, just restating the five positions that were already civilian.

So was it's not even civilianization, but were being performed by officers were four FT police and tech techs, one fleet compliance coordinator, and one grants coordinator in OPD.

And again, 11 months this morning, I believe, 11 months after we asked for these positions to be hired.

They're civilian jobs already.

11 months later, the first job posting goes online.

So I think it's really this the this shows a lack of commitment to the uh civilianization process when we're talking about not even IA jobs were uh well, not even jobs that were coded as uh sworn officers.

These are already for civilian they're already civilian jobs, but it took 11 months from when we passed the budget to the day it goes up on the website.

Um, and I would really like an update as to those five positions that are already civilian and why it took so long to be able to do that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Brown, then excellent.

Um, well, thank you so much.

Always grateful for all the public speakers that um came to speak um on this particular item.

Um, in addition, um uh deputy administrator Davis, thank you so much for including in the packet um all of the, you know, kind of all of the prior policy directives because I think it was it was really helpful and and kind of grounding around like, hey, what were some of the things that have consistently come?

Um so thank you for including that.

And um, so I'm gonna I I'm gonna have some very specific questions and of course I know um you know, in your role, you're not necessarily the administrator that oversees some of the items, and so um I guess it's just some information to take note of, and then I will be specifically commenting on the items that I actually um myself and my team wrote into the policy directives, and so uh these were things that were of great concern.

Um, so in the first one around OPD um recruitment, I just wanted to make a small flag that I think it's interesting, very grateful that uh there will be the launch of a website around recruitment, but I can't help but flag that it's not gonna be launched until April of 2027, and so that will kind of put us in place for a whole nother budget cycle, and so I I I guess I'm uh I would love I would like the opportunity to have an answer around why it is delayed um for um into April of 2027.

Um in addition, uh, in item number two, um, that all of the public speakers have mentioned, and as my colleagues have mentioned, uh, you know, these are things that we wrote and put into the policy directives, and and they've been um uplifted literally for about a decade.

Um and so I wanted to call attention to um the creation of the task force with a plan and a timeline for implementation uh by June 30th, 2026.

Um, and then we also uh listed uh the, you know, the the bodies that we would like to participate.

Um I do want to flag for the public that this evening at the public safety committee we will be receiving a report um from CIPRA.

Um, and I know that we've um in our last budget cycle, I believe there were multiple positions that were added to help support CIPRA.

Um, so we're very interested to know uh how that staffing is going, but um definitely really focused in on the creation of that task force so that we we are actually um because I noticed uh in the table uh item number two is just blank, it doesn't say in progress, it doesn't, there's no there's no notation.

So just want to uplift that.

Um in addition, um for item number three, um, I would like an answer for what was stated where it says the surges were complete, but the allocated funding for removal of the vehicles um was deemed ineligible for the funding source.

Um I believe that uh that line item uh fell under measure BB, and I'm just curious if there's any impacts that we should be aware of potentially that question would go to uh uh director Johnson around uh that one.

Um item number three funding for abandoned autos, any um impacts.

Uh lastly, I think I wanted to bring up something about item number six around HR hiring, and um, I guess specifically to the public commenters' point around the eligibility list, um, and would it be the city administration that would actually go to the civil service board and actually uplift the removal of uh expiration for eligibility lists?

So just wanted to ask that that question be to see if that is the route to try to tackle that that issue and concern that um potentially many departments are having around the eligibility lists.

Um, but as always, thank you all for all of the hard work.

Um, and I think I would support um a public conversation around the policy directives, and so if we were able to hold this in finance to get some of the answers, um that would be great.

Thank you.

Is that a second?

Yes, second.

Yeah, I uh I agree.

I think I would like uh CO Johnson to be here to answer some of our questions.

Um uh ACA Davis, I don't know if you're able to answer this, but I am wondering as it relates to the civil civilianization.

Sorry, very difficult word to pronounce, um, of the uh 38 positions.

If I'm reading the table correctly, so far, none of those positions have actually been civilian civilianized.

Is that correct?

Like there's some movement, but we haven't actually hired anyone into that.

I was gonna say I can't speak with certainty that the answer is no.

So I'll just confirm with you as this item is gonna be continued.

Okay, that sounds good.

Um, I think a particular interest to me is ensuring that we civilianize positions like the IT position.

I think that would be an ideal position to civilianize as well as the intake technicians, where you know, when someone needs to issue a police report after the fact, after an incident happens, it doesn't have to be uh a sworn police officer.

This would also be create efficiency since I know of individuals who have tried to just put in a police report and they they have to wait for an officer to come at some odd hour.

And I I don't it just it's also about improving our level of services uh delivered by the police department.

Um the other thing I wanted to ask a question about there was a flag under the abandoned uh vehicle surge that the allocated funding for removal of vehicles from the right of way was subsequently deemed ineligible for that funding source.

Uh can someone elaborate and explain more about that.

Um thank you, Councilmember Wong for the question.

Um I remember when we were uh making the various allocations under Measure B B funds.

Um I believe we were under the impression that um by definition, if if something is in like the public right-of-way, then it could be an allowable use for that funding source.

Um, and so that's why when I read it in the report that maybe that wasn't actually accurate.

Um, and I don't have my um my Excel sheet in front of me as far as like how much that allocation was, and so that's why I kind of had that larger question about um you know how that will pencil out, sure, and then to uh to address that question to the chair to council members Wong and Brown.

So the funding for that was measure B B.

We are in discussions right now with ACTC on funding eligibility uh for those particular surge operations, given some feedback we've gotten from them.

Uh we I can confirm for you that if those surges relate to um more related to encampment related activity, we have some major um discussions ongoing with ACTC, but again, that will be I'll be happy to update you further once those discussions are complete as relates to that item.

Um I did do a little bit of homework as it relates to the positions that were being discussed earlier related to item two in civilianization based on the list that um the chair provided of for intake techs, the fleet compliance coordinator and the grants coordinator.

And for everyone's heads up, what I did is I went back and looked at our staffing study report, which does have in its attachment the breakdown of where all positions that stood at that time.

The right now there is one vacant intake tech in CIPRA.

There is not a requisition submitted by CIPRA to fill it.

So HR can't move on it.

The fleet coordinator is under class spec review.

So HR is working uh internally with the department and then with the actual union to develop the full class spec before it can be posted, and the grants coordinator is po is been posted, there have been candidates identified, and they're in background and review.

Okay, thank you for that.

And uh, I just part of the reason I do want to dig into the abandoned uh car and the eligibilities there is because I have to think that most of our abandoned vehicles are in fact in the right-of-way.

So if it's not an eligible use, then uh, you know, that is something that we need to know.

Um, and finally, I do want to comment on the academy recruitment.

Um, it's been something that I've been working closely with OPD on.

I've been bluntly uh frustrated at times with our ability to move quicker.

We as a council that allocated those marketing dollars, these academies are not cheap to fund.

Um, and I know that some of our early academies did not bear out a ton of graduates, to be honest.

Um, I think I see in this report that um the this next upcoming one has 46 candidates, so that's actually really promising progress.

Um, but I did want to just make sure since I know some of what we've done is delay academies in order to to fill more of the slots.

It's not a I and I agree with that that that makes a lot of sense, but um, I was wondering if we're still on schedule to complete all five academies by the time that we uh reach the end of the uh FY27, or if we'll expect delays beyond that, because there is it's cut off in the table.

So if we're not prepared to answer to this, I would like CAO Johnson to be able to answer that the next time this item comes before us.

And then the other thing I just want to note is on the human trafficking directive.

Um, reading this, I was reflecting that this says that the city administrator's office is really supposed to do this.

I feel like in many ways I have taken on so much heavy lifting myself.

Uh I know oftentimes we as city councilors get told, stay out of it, you know, don't get into the administrative side of things.

Trust me, I'm getting way into the administrative me and my team have gotten so much into the administrative side of things when it comes to human trafficking, and I I am just pleaing that I need some more support and prioritization from the city administrators' office.

So I am not just, you know, we're not doing this as a city council office.

So may I respond to the second question you asked?

Um in conversation with Chief Bear, there's no anticipation of delays of academies at this time.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Just to follow up on those.

So the public has quoted 38 positions that council is directed to be civilianized.

I would add five more, the ones that we had put last year, to basically get to a number of 43 positions that could release officers to the sworn jobs and civilians can be, and Oakland residents can be hired to do these civilian jobs.

Um that being said, to the finance director, um, the one the intake tech that is posted on the jobs website, is that for four positions?

Because we'd if we had tried a civilian total of six uh last year, and then there's one posted this morning on the jobs website, which is that part of this.

Uh to the chair.

So all I did is I went back because I don't have the specific insight in all to the details.

What I looked at is our staffing matrix that came with your staffing study, and what it shows is in the classification.

Um I see Andrew Lightle is here from our HR department.

I'll finish, at least from what I saw.

I looked through the intake technician classification where it showed up, it shows filled with one vacant and the one vacancy uh was in a status of no requisition submitted as of the staffing study that is likely the one that was requisitioned and is going now, but I don't have the internal details.

All I did was research the documents already in the public record.

Uh, through the chair, the position or the eligible list will be established to fill all positions for the next two years, and that eligible is can be extended for an additional two years.

So even though there's only a requisition for one position at the moment, we can use that eligible list to fill multiple vacancies.

Okay, thank you.

I will oh council member Brown.

Excellent.

I'm so sorry, since um Amber is here.

I just want to clarify um that um so based on what you said, um, if an eligibility list expires, um, if a department head just calls over to HR to extend that, we can do that.

The request for eligible extension has to come before the eligible list has expired.

So we do send out monthly emails to departments letting them know all the active eligible lists and they have time to request it before it expires.

All right, good stuff.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I will restate my motion with a request for um supplemental information.

So the request is to um hold this in committee um until the June 23rd um FMC meeting with a request for additional information, elaborating on policy directive two from the directives passed last year, as well as Councilmember Wong had said, asked for additional information on policy uh directive one.

Um I think also Councilman Brown had said policy directive three.

So the auto surge, the academies, and of course civilianization.

Second.

Thank you.

That was a motion made by Council Chair Ramachandran, seconded by Council Member Brown to continue this item to the June 23rd Finance and Management Committee meeting with the request for supplemental information as stated on record.

On roll council members Brown.

Aye.

Anger.

Wang.

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number six passes with four eyes to continue to the June 23rd Finance and Management Committee meeting.

Now reading in item number three.

Receive an informational report from the city auditors.

City auditor on the audit of the Revenue Management Bureau's business tax collections process, and we have three speakers that signed up to speak.

In the interest of time, since we have 45 minutes to get through the next four items, um auditor Houston, how many minutes will you need?

So I'm not going to be doing the bulk of the speaking.

Is it possible to have five?

Or we can postpone this item to the next uh FMC.

We could do it in five.

And why don't I give a give a brief um introduction?

Um again, I'm Michael C.

Houston, I'm the city auditor.

Um this audit arose from a request from the city council.

Um we put in on our uh annual work plan for 24-25, and um we contracted out to conduct this audit to the very um experienced and well-respected and well-qualified firm Schoberg Evashenk and consulting, and um today we have George Sciles, who's partner with SEC to present the audit, wow.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, members of the finance management committee.

Uh, for the record, my name is George Sciles, a partner with Schober Gebishing Consulting, and my firm was engaged by the city auditor to conduct a performance audit of the revenue management bureau's business tax collection process.

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Bureau was collecting all business tax revenues due to the city, whether it had systems in place to ensure accurate and timely collection of business taxes, and whether opportunities for improvement could be made to enhance revenues.

The audit covered the period July 2021 through June 2024.

We also looked at activities occurring through 2025 to better understand recent actions taken by the Bureau.

Our audit focused on three key areas: procedure, data accuracy and consistency, and program over site.

First procedures, the audit found weaknesses in how delinquent accounts were identified, researched, and referred for collection.

Historically, the bureau had structured processes in place in which the tax compliance division researched delinquent businesses, verified whether businesses were still operating, conducted outreach, and then referred accounts to specialized enforcement units such as collections or citywide liens.

Beginning in 2022, this process declined significantly.

In 2023, no batches of delinquent accounts were sent to collections.

And in 2024, about 4100 delinquent accounts were sent to collections, totaling about 14 million dollars, but the vast majority had not been fully researched, prepared, or prepared for referral.

This caused significant delays, and delays matter with a three-year statute of limitations for collection.

Second procedure procedural process, um, is that the audit found that the bureau reduced or ceased several business discovery practices intended to identify unregistered businesses.

These included field inspections, the use of government data sources, and internet-based searches.

As a result, the number of discovered unregistered businesses declined significantly during the audit period.

They fell 48% just in fiscal year 2024 from the year prior.

The second problem we found was related to data accuracy in the tax management system.

The audit found inconsistent use of account status codes within the Bureau's tax system.

Different users applied different terms to similar situations.

And this resulted in the system data that was not adequately reliable or usable.

Account statuses were not timely updated as well.

Delinquent accounts were often not labeled delinquent until many months after taxes were actually overdue.

For example, in 2024, nearly 57% of accounts that eventually received a delinquent status were not marked delinquent until November of that year, even though taxes were considered overdue in March.

Without standardized terminology and timely data entry, management could not reliably determine the status of delinquent accounts or assess the effectiveness of their collection process.

First, the Bureau had not implemented adequate segregation of duties controls over manual adjustments of business tax accounts.

Multiple staff members, including non-supervisory personnel, had the ability to change account amounts owed in the system.

And there was no written policy requiring a secondary approval or documentation supporting those adjustments.

Our analysis identified more than 2,800 manual adjustments, totaling approximately 2.7 million during this audit period, with roughly 75% of them being performed by non-supervisory personnel.

Second, the audit also found that communication and monitoring across divisions became less consistent during the audit period.

Leadership relied heavily on total revenue collected as a performance measure, but that metric did not provide visibility into whether the divisions within the bureau were performing well.

Importantly, and I'll skip over this relatively quickly, the audit did find some units within the bureau to be performing well.

Um the business tax audit division, as well as the customer support and and business tax registration units, both performed well and consistent with leading practices.

The report resulted in 10 recommendations, developing including developing formal written policies and procedures, standardizing account status definitions, implementing regular and timely referral processes for delinquent accounts, reinstating and expanding business discovery practices, strengthening segregation of duties controls, and developing comprehensive performance metrics and monitoring systems.

I went through this relatively quickly, cut some out, so I'm happy to answer any questions.

The last thing I would like to say is that we acknowledge the work of the Revenue Bureau as we were conducting this audit.

We noticed we noted a lot of improvements in place and a recognition of some of the problems that were occurring in the past.

Performance audits are never easy, often not pleasant, but I think that I think management's view of this audit process was an opportunity to improve, and they uh and they embraced the process and uh um cooperated in a very professional manner.

So I want to appreciate uh extend my appreciation for that as well.

Thank you.

Um, back in early 2024, this was probably the issue I spent my most time on over the course of six months.

Every single finance committee meeting, and I have this in my notes.

I was asking the questions about when were the NODs going to be sent.

When were the NOVs going to be sent?

For the entirety of 2023, like when you said no notices came out, this can this this was a major issue which prompted us to then ask for this audit and then this review.

So I really appreciate the effort that went in.

Now I do have some questions about the numbers because my deep dive over the six months taught me much more than I knew about the process of col of collections and the importance of the timeliness of notices going out, the importance of tax enforcement officers.

To this day, several of my questions are still not answered from the department, but I do want to acknowledge how many changes the revenue division has made since then.

From my last set of questions that I have in my notes back in June 2024, I know that many of the processes have been changed, and since the audit period that you studied, um, significantly more notices have gone out in our collections of um business tax revenues as well as um others have improved monumentally, and I do want to point that out.

Now I do have a question about the numbers, because back in 20 early 2024 when we were asking for these reports, the numbers that I have is are higher of missed revenues is actually higher than what you're saying.

So I'm curious how you got to it.

Well, we had, which in my presentation back in at the special city council meeting on April 30th, 2024, my estimation from different sources was 50 million, but the number that the finance department then admitted to was about 30 million in FY2324, 6,960 businesses didn't pay, both combination of rental and non-rental, that was 8 million.

FY22 to 23, it was about 8,600 businesses that didn't pay, which is about sixteen million dollars estimated for the projected uh gross revenues from those businesses, and then 2122 was about 10.8 million.

Um was the period that your audit studied different or how how are and the these were the numbers that the finance department had projected.

My own estimates and other others' estimates were higher, but um how did you get to your numbers and is it is it the time period that's different?

The time period um was partly different.

I think the the primary reason is the system, and when we extract reports from the system, the data that we are receiving is as of the date of the extraction.

So over time, as accounts are closed out, um there could have been accounts that would have been open when those were reported to you at that point.

When we pulled when we extracted data in July 2025, November 2025, many of those accounts could have been closed out, businesses could have closed, so that the data set would have been different.

A lot of them would have been the same, but a lot of them would have been different as well.

So then basically, because of trained practices or notices or whatever changes happen, some of those numbers that I'm talking about from early 2024 were then received by the city.

It's likely that many were received and it's likely that many were closed.

Okay.

Um then so what about one of the biggest issues that I remember I found concerning two years ago was the statute of limitations and the fact that several of these businesses of this, let's say between 30 plus million dollar figure that was not collected in that three-year period, much of which could not be collected anymore.

Do you have an estimate of what that cannot be collected due to statute limitations?

I I do not.

We believe it's in the tens of millions, but it's the statute of limitations prevents the city from taking legal action against those businesses that didn't pay, depending on what actions had taken place by the collections division.

Um that doesn't mean the amounts are uncollectible.

A business that inadvertently didn't pay can voluntarily bring their account status up to be current, that is possible.

Um so I don't have a precise number at this point, and I think given the data accuracy that we saw in the system with accounts either not being uh designated as delinquent, um, it makes it very difficult to come up with a precise number.

Okay.

Um, colleagues, uh Councilmember Brown, uh, then wonk.

Okay, um, excellent.

Thank you so much.

Um, thanks for um, you know, this audit.

Uh give me one second.

I had a specific question about um on page 27, and I guess uh maybe the answer um I guess through the chair to um our finance director and/or um those who conducted the audit.

I'm interested in the recommendation number five.

Of course, all of them interested in the timeline of implementing these recommendations, um, but for I for recommendation number five, develop and implement written protocols, um, so that no single individual is capable of modifying business tax records, etc.

Um, just wanted to get some more um kind of insight into that.

Did do we actually can you provide an example of what is what would be a manual adjustment that would be made?

Yeah, there are legitimate reasons why there would be a manual adjustment if uh the tax auditors were to audit a business record, audit the filings of a business and find that they misrepresented their revenue, that auditor can update the amount owed, the the gross revenues received by the business and say no uh you didn't earn a million dollars like you reported it was two million dollars, and they can update so there are legitimate reasons for adjustments.

Um but when adjustments are made, there should be a secondary review, and this there's a system problem in that the system allows an adjustment to be made by one person.

So they're so incorporating a system control that automatically requires a secondary review would would help resolve this problem.

I see.

Excellent.

Um so uh I guess as a oh sure.

Good morning, Nicole Welch, Revenue and Tax Administrator.

Um to further delve into your question.

We have a written policy, and what and that was actually given over to the auditor.

We are also in a process of migrating our client-based, meaning our client-based system to the cloud, where we will have a user group where you will be limited on what you can actually do in the system.

So we're gonna do that via system and policy.

So, right now, the policy is that to close an account, it will be in a okay to close and it will be reviewed by the supervisor if it meets the merits of being closed.

If it needs to be adjusted, meaning the account needs to be adjusted on a dollar limit, it is based on what your role is within the actual bureau.

I see.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you for that detailed update.

And of the recommendations that are listed by the city auditors team, um, do you are there any of these that you know that, hey, you know what, we need to go ahead and implement a system um like very like top of mine.

Um I'm gonna be very candid.

The majority of the items within the audit, we acknowledge that they did happen.

However, we are at an inflection point.

Um that inflection point happened in June when I took over as interim.

Um we are actually turning it around.

Um, and I always say to everyone that it took us years to get there.

It's gonna take us years to get out of it.

However, my team and I have been diligently, you know, getting these things happening.

Um, one of the things that uh council pre council chair uh Ramashandran highlighted is that the delinquency's notices did not go out timely.

They are going out.

They the property accounts went out last week on Friday.

Um, you're probably gonna get a lot of calls from your constituents because that is happening.

And in June, the non-property uh notices will be going out, the NODs, and those are the notice of determinations.

Um in July, we're scheduled to do the I would call them identification, and we did the pre-identification because we sent out postcards to all property owners in who own property in Oakland, whether you were industrial, commercial, residential, that if you are renting your property, even as a short-term rental, you are required to have a business license.

So we are enacting a lot of the things that were within the audit, and I really appreciate having a third party looking at our processes and giving us ideas on where we are at a blind spot, and at this particular point in time, to affect the changes that we're going to be and what we are doing.

What we need right now is patience and time.

And for all of our partners on the city council, when you have your complaints from the residents, do understand that we are just doing our job.

Excellent.

Thank you for the update.

Thank you.

Just step eight, just following up on that specifically, and like I mentioned, I really appreciate the progress that was made in the course of just a year and sending these notices out and processes.

But is are there aspects?

I know a lot of the audit looks at this before period when things were a mess between the pandemic and 2020 end of 2024.

Are there things that are being pointed out that's that can help you currently today as you've the the things that's obvious that we know you've improved on very well is outreach, getting more businesses aware that they have to file and making sure notices are suddenly are sent out on time.

Are there other aspects of this audit that you plan to uh recommendations you please they're considering adopting?

Absolutely the controls.

Um having those internal controls was absolutely critical.

Um it is an audit.

I look at it as I need to be able to follow an account from inception to is eventual outcome of either active, closed, uh bankruptcy, and what have you.

So having that identification of having our internal controls was absolutely critical.

Um the other part of the audit that was absolutely critical was the um getting back into the work of identifying new businesses, looking at businesses that are may not be aware or who are aware but are avoiding us and actually delving in and finding these companies and actually bringing them into compliance.

So those have been things that in this actual audit report that is actually I think has been a motivating factor for my team to actually enact.

Great, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Ungar then Locke.

Um I just want to highlight Ms.

Welch your use of the term inflection point because I think that's really important.

And as the auditor, your your job is to be slow and careful in your work, and so what we end up with is telling the story of 2024 when 2025 and 2026 are really different, and because you issued this report, the headline literally becomes we're not collecting taxes, when the truth is that in 25 and 26, that's no longer the reality.

I think it's important that we highlight that here and let the public know that that this is a story about a problem that is in the process of being fixed, and you know, I hope that when you do your audit report follow-up, whenever that is in a year, that we highlight the fact that the change in the inflection point had already happened by the time you issued this report, and that there are um improvements and we're collecting more taxes.

Thank you, council member, and that actually reminds me of something, which is that um the finance department provided a response to this um audit, the actual letter and an implementation plan where details their agreement, partial agreement to the audit recommendations and a timeline as to when those are going to be implemented.

Um we have not included it in the report yet, but they did generally agree with all of them.

Um I'm going to make sure that that's included in the back, and it also provides some that context, showing areas that have already been acted on.

We will follow up on these recommendations as part of our annual semi-annual audit recommendation follow-up process.

The first one will be effective June 30th, 2026.

Thanks.

Um yeah, I I have a question.

So first of all, I just want to say uh the audit team, you always do excellent work.

So thank you for pulling those together.

Um, uh so I think in the report it established something uh we're leaving around nine to twelve million dollars on the table annually.

Are we expecting because of this inflection point?

Um, like do we have a projection of how much we're leaving off the table now or in the near future?

I'm not able to answer now.

I can tell you, talking about inflection point that that 2025, beginning of 2025, the problem still existed.

By the end of 2025, many steps had been had been taken and to resolve that.

So I don't believe that in 2026 that kind of money is going to be left on the table that that the bureau is taking action to refer accounts in a timely manner.

That's what we that's what we found at the end of 2025.

It's a process, right?

It's it to as Nicole mentioned, it took years to get to the point where we're the Bureau got and it's gonna take some time.

Um so we do see that it's being resolved.

Uh, I'm not able to answer the question about specific dollars, though.

I don't know if uh Nicole, do you want to take a stab at that?

Uh at this particular point in time, I'm leaving no money on the table.

Um, my objective, my job is to collect every dime that is owed to the residents of the city of Oakland.

Um, we will be bringing to you on July 7th the second uh batch of items that will be up for lien.

We are actually will be going through the process of non-property accounts.

We will we're actually what we will call we will be outreaching on those um starting in June.

So it will start with a notice and then it will go.

The next step will be if you are a commercial in-city business, we will be visiting you to find out if you're there, and if you're there, why did you not file and why did you not pay?

Um, then after that is when you're going to have the other part of the part of what the job entails, which is identifying the new businesses.

So the prelude to that was the 75,000 postcards.

The next step will be identifying properties that are not registered and that are renting, and that will be happening in July.

Okay, that's so no so to answer your question.

I absolutely and my team absolutely take very seriously our fiduciary responsibility of collecting the money that is due on this particular taxes and all others.

Okay, gotcha.

That's great.

And then um just to confirm because it was mentioned that there's a statute of limitations for collections that is set by state law, right?

We can't change anything about that here in the city of Oakland.

No, we can't okay.

And um I also just want to confirm because we've talked about the plague of unregistered businesses that I have in, especially along international boulevards.

We changed our businesses.

Yes, okay.

And so this audit, I think does not actually like looking at the nine to twelve million dollar gap, that's based off of licensed and registered businesses.

So we may actually be leaving more on the table, and it does sound like there's an important thing that I know Nicole, we've been in discussion that we should also try to get people into just the basic compliance of being registered to begin with.

That's why I said be prepared for complaints.

Okay, sounds good.

We'll take that.

Thank you.

Okay, is there public comment?

Yes, calling in the names that signed up to speak on item number three, Asada Olabala, David Boltwright, and Kevin Daly.

Kevin Daly, I'll be quick.

I think it's great that you're looking at fire code inspections and building inspections to find some of the businesses that aren't yet paying.

Hoping that you're also looking for the money that the businesses owe for unpaid fire inspection fees.

Uh, thank you for your work.

David Bowery, District 4.

As a uh city taxpayer on time, it is very discouraging to hear that so much revenue was missed.

It'd be interesting to hear what the statute of limitations is and how much of this uh money we will be able to recover.

I too, like the committee's chairperson, am frustrated by delays in receiving responses to questions.

And in my case, it's from district representative, my district representative's office.

Is being held up by the fact that you have to collect uh deal with waste management when people have not paid, and you have to deal with holding them accountable.

Who's responsible for that in the city?

If we didn't have that responsibility, we could spend more time on dealing with this issue.

I hope you I don't think your contract with waste management is not coming up anytime soon, but when it does come up, get out of that responsibility of dealing when people do not pay waste management uh bills.

Now, any time you receive in the mail a postcard that says, if you are a landlord, you should be paying a tax.

That means you don't know who should be paying business taxes as landlords.

The other thing is this report reflects data from July 1st, 2021 through July 30th, 2024.

We don't have any report on the two years since 2024.

We're looking like two years ago where we were at that time.

Where are we today?

So we're looking at uh no regulatory reviews, lack of policies, delay on refunds, inconsistencies, lack of accuracy, lack of timely timeliness, lack of proper oversight.

That's a lot of lack of.

So I don't know the the deadline for the overall total fix, is what date?

What is the timeline for fixing this?

And it has to be fixed because it's two.

I'm sorry.

Chair, that concludes all speakers on this item.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to receive and file the report.

Second.

Thank you.

That was a motion made by Councilmember Wong, seconded by Councilmember Brown to receive and file this informational report in committee.

On Royal Council Members Brown, aye.

Unger?

Aye.

Wong?

Aye.

And Chair Ramachanjan.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number three passes with four eyes to receive and file this information report.

Adam Clerk, may I make a quick announcement?

Since we have 15 minutes and three apparently very time sensitive items, we will be reducing speaker time to one minute and request a very abbreviated staff presentation.

Thank you.

Okay, reading in item number four.

Adopt a resolution approving the City of Oakland landscaping and lighting assessment district fiscal year 2026 to 2027 preliminary engineers report declaring the intention to levy and collect the annual landscaping and lighting assessment district assessment for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 and setting June 2nd, 2026 at 3 30 p.m.

as the date for the date and time for a public hearing.

And we have two speakers that sign up to speak.

Good morning through the chair.

Today I am presenting a resolution of three annual steps required under state law to levy and collect the fiscal year 2026-27 landscaping and lighting assessment district or LAD assessments.

And it sets June 2nd, 2026, at 3:30 p.m.

as the public hearing date for council consideration of the final levy.

We have our consulting assessment engineer from Franciscan Associates available via Zoom for any questions that you may have.

And I'm also available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

We can move to public speakers.

Calling in the names that signed up to speak on item four, Asada Olabala and Blair Beekman.

So I just need a point of clarification.

Are union members considered a part of the public?

Are they employees of the city of Oakland?

Because you referenced that we heard from the public.

You didn't hear from the public, you heard from the unions that y'all are working together to get this illegal measure E out.

So something that's confusing because I always take the position that public hearing, you have to do it, but you don't take it serious.

Because in the document it says, after hearing adopted resolution, confirm the uh report and levy the assessment.

Now I thought the public hearing was supposed to be a way of determining whether you're gonna levy the assessments.

What's the purpose of the public hearing if you already have in your directive that you are gonna approve leveling the assessment?

Why are we speaking as public members?

Are we just going through the motion?

Are you keeping your minds open to possibly voting one way or the other?

Thank you for your comments, Ms.

Olabala.

Blair Beekman, if you still wish to speak, please raise your hand.

All names have been called at this time, Chair.

Thank you.

I'll undertain a motion.

Um I'll move the item to the council meeting, June 2nd.

Can I uh I'd like to ask just one uh confirming question?

So we have an opportunity.

This is gonna be on June 2nd, where we're actually gonna vote and have a uh lengthier discussion about this.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

That was a motion made by Council Member Brown, second by Councilmember Unger to approve the recommendations of staff and to forward this item to the May 19th City Council agenda on roll.

Council members Brown.

Are we forwarding this item to the June 2nd meeting?

Through the chair to the city attorney.

The item goes to the next council meeting to fix the here and will fix the hearing date for the third stage at June 2nd.

Okay, aye.

Thank you.

Councilmember Unger.

Aye.

Wong, aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number four passes with four I support this item to the May 19th City Council agenda on consent.

Reading in item number five.

Adopt a resolution approving the appointment of an of an annuity without one a 180 day break in service where the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed position before 180 days have passed since the employees' retirement in accordance with government section government code section 21 224 and 752.56.

And we have two speakers that signed up to speak.

This allows for continuity during his transition into retirement.

While administrative in nature, Cowper's regulations require city council approval.

Brendan from our department will provide additional detail, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we can move to public comment.

Calling in the names I signed up to speak on item five, Asada Olabala and Kevin Daly.

I'm sure problem with this person being having an opportunity to continue his work, but I have a problem with the work that's being done at the Oakland Army base.

The Oakland Army base is heavily contaminated with toxic sustenance, including lead, arson, petroleum products, that's kerosene, uh S Vestus, carbon um carbonated solutions.

These pollutants remain in the soil and groundwater, causing significant environmental and public health concerns for the surrounding West Oakland community.

Y'all, those toxins have been there for years, and you you did not seek to utilize the property, but now you're ignoring all these health issues, just like you're ignoring the Oakland Hills skyline, cannot be evacuated.

You ignore anything that is a challenge to doing the right thing that you don't want to deal with, Kevin Daley.

I want to make sure that when we do approve exceptions to the inuitant rule that we have a way of tracking the maximum number of hours that you're legally allowed to perform before something else happens, as long as that happens and this is fine.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

That concludes all speakers on this item.

Thank you.

I will entertain a motion, Councilman Brown.

Excellent.

And I do have a slight question.

Um I'll be quick.

Uh, this is my first time seeing an item like this, and so I just wanted to ask, and I didn't see it in the report.

Uh, is there a um is there like a time frame of how long um the employee is able to work outside of this the scope through the uh through the chair to council brown?

Uh 960 hours, no uh person who can work more than 96 hours in the fiscal year.

Nine 960 hours.

Yes, excellent, thank you.

I'll make uh oh, I'm just making a motion, second, yeah.

Second, okay.

We're sorry, I apologize.

Were there any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Thank you.

We have a motion made by Councilmember Wong, seconded by Council Member Brown to approve the recommendations of staff and support with this item to the May 19th City Council agenda on May 19th City Council agenda on roll council members brown.

Aye.

Unger?

I wang aye, and Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number five passes with four eyes to forward this item to the May 19th City Council agenda on consent.

Now reading in item number seven.

Adopt an ordinance authorizing the borrowing of funds and the issuance of a and sale of 2026 to 27 tax and revenue anticipation notes in a principal amount not to exceed 200 million dollars payable from revenues received for um or accrued to the general fund of the city during the fiscal year 2026 to 27 and approving certain related matters.

And we have two speakers that sign up to speak.

Good morning.

Excuse me.

Good morning, David Jones, uh Treasury uh administrator.

Um to you, uh Chairperson Ramon Chandrin and committee members before you is this first reading of the ordinance for the borrowing of this year's notes for 26-27.

Um the note will mature in less than 15 months, and the city has successfully done this type of transaction in the past.

Funds that will be used to temporarily even out the cash flows arising from fluctuations in monthly tax and revenue receipts, and also um will include a prepayment to calipers for our unfunded actual liability, and we receive a discount of approximately 3.34 percent.

Uh, and we'll be coming back uh with the resolution as well as uh other documents in June, and we're recommending that this go next Tuesday to council on non-consent.

Thank you.

Is is it typically required to go on non-consent?

Yes, yes, there's some type of legal ramifications that outside bond council has um recommended they'd like to see it on non-consent.

Okay.

Um, colleagues, questions, comments, make a motion to adopt the staff recommendation.

Okay, and I will second that and we can go to public speakers.

Calling in the names I signed up to speak on item seven, Asada Olabala, and Kevin Dali.

So uh the thing that concerns me is that you agree when you go through this process to repay within one year using expected future revenues, such as fees, grants, and taxes.

So are you prepared to say you can guarantee that you'll be able to in one year repay with and we're talking about rep, he's shaking his head, okay.

Brian, we'll see.

Do you still wish to speak on thank you, Chair?

That concludes all speakers on this item, and we have a motion made by Councilmember Wong, seconded by Chair Ramachandran to approve the recommendations of stop and support this to the May 19, 2026.

City Council agenda on non-consent on roll.

Council members Brown.

Aye.

Unger.

Aye.

Long.

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number seven passes with four ayes to forward this item to the May 19th City Council agenda on nonconsent.

Now moving on to open forum, calling in the names that signed up to speak.

Mike Petalloff, David Votwright, Asado Olabala, Millie Cleveland, Blair Beekman, and Kevin Dali.

In interest of time, I have a takeaway for the council members.

I could I could leave behind.

Open forum is for items within the scope of the committee, but not on the agenda.

And I have that today in terms of coordinating paving that you funded and trenching.

Let me say congratulations to this committee for your work in fiscal diligence to improve our credit rating so we can have bonds.

We have paving moving forward.

But we need to deal with trenching.

And let me say uh I'm actually a member of the budget advisory commission.

We made a recommendation in the mayor's budget uh last cycle, but I'm speaking today really as a resident of district four and as a registered professional civil engineer in California.

Let me just state the obvious maybe the our streets are also utility quarters.

Storm drains, potable water, electricity run in our streets.

Um private and public entities put their utilities there and need to trench and dig up our streets that impacts the need for paving sooner and can mess up paving that's been done.

Many cities, and I've experienced this personally, have provisions.

Thank you for your comments.

Your one minute is up.

David Bowery, District 4.

It's amazing that so little has been said about upcoming but the upcoming budget.

What happened to the community meetings to obtain budget input?

What is the expected deficit if Measure E is not approved June the second?

So uh I'm very grateful for the groups in power Oakland and Citizens Oakland for putting out and identifying the issues with measure E.

So uh it says that and from the group uh Oakland, Citizens Oakland, high tax per capita.

Uh they call this broken promises, the the fire station and the misusing all of this.

And I'm not gonna go into detail, but I just appreciate that they are groups out here, not like Wellstone, uh not supporting measure E.

And if you take the time to go look at the reasons, you shouldn't be supporting it either.

So uh I'm just gonna continue to tell people vote no on measure E.

Uh that you gotta come up with a way to fairly present to the public.

You're looking at I'm just saw today uh that in uh farmers insurance is going to be going up on the the payments for homeowners insurance, mortgages, thank you for your comments.

Uh taking a consideration uh you all Blair Beekman, you can unmute yourself and begin your one-minute comment.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Um I missed the uh landscape and lighting item.

Hopefully, my words about the future of street lighting can be related.

Uh we need good practices all the way around with the issue.

Um, I'm learning more about what you accomplished with the Cell Bright issue, that actually it can be brought back in a year's time, which is actually amazing.

Again, like with your ALPR stuff, you guys are really setting a standard in course, possibly.

Um, we've got promises.

We got a long list of promises.

I hope we really want to work on those promises.

I will definitely be speaking of public comment to remind you of our good promises of what's possible and capable.

Man, we are setting the course for the nation, quite possibly.

So thank you immensely.

I really hope we can stick to our good work and good efforts and want to continue uh questioning the future of our technology and finding uh more appropriate uh ways to work with our future technology.

We're doing that in Oakland, thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

That concludes all speakers.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.