Online speaker requests were due 24 hours
prior to this meeting.
Making that time yesterday at 9.30 a.m.
The meeting came to order at 9.30.
Speaker cards will no longer be accepted 10 minutes
after the meeting has began.
Or if the item has been read into record,
whichever comes first.
Making that time 9.40 a.m.
With that we will now proceed to take roll.
Council Member Brown.
Present.
Council Member Unger.
Here.
Councilmember Wong?
Here.
And Chair Ramachandran?
Present.
We have four members present.
And before we begin, Chair,
do you have any announcements for us today?
No announcements.
Looking forward to getting through our seven items
and I believe this is the last committee of the year.
So looking forward to this being productive.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Yes, it is in the holiday spirit.
We would start with our first item of the day
and that's approval of the draft minutes
from the committee meetings
that was held on October 28, 2025
and the special meeting that was held on November 18th, 2025.
And we do not have any speakers for this.
We'll entertain a motion.
I will move approval.
Second.
Thank you.
We have a motion made by Council Member Unger,
seconded by Council Member Brown
to accept the draft minutes of the committee meetings
October 28, 2025, and the special meeting
on November 18, 2025.
As is, on roll, Council Member Brown?
Aye.
Council Member Unger?
Aye.
And Council Member Wong?
Aye.
And Chair W reviewing.
Aye.
This motion passes with four ayes
to accept the draft minutes of the committee meetings
on October 28th and November 18th, 2025 as is.
Moving to item two.
This is determination and schedule outstanding committee items.
This is also known as your pending list.
And we do have one speaker for this item.
Thank you to the administration and changes.
Nothing at this time, thank you.
Okay, we can move to public speakers.
Thank you.
Calling our public speakers, Ms. Asada.
I'm calling for a report on the $400,000
that was allocated for the World Cup.
The reason being that in July of 2025,
the Alameda City Council met and agreed to,
through the hotel transaction tax,
to fund $150,000 as a part of the $700,000.
So you already had $150,000 from the city of Alameda
committed to the $700,000.
And I'm going to talk about this in open forum with more detail.
But it looks like you took on the whole responsibility
of funding for the World Cup, the $700,000,
when it was written that Alameda County,
the city of Alameda, the city of Berkeley,
and the city of Oakland,
along with the Roots organization,
would be responsible for financing.
And that didn't happen.
So I need a report on how we got to fully fund everything
when the city of Alameda already funded in July $150,000.
So this trickology and this mismanagement
that was identified and the grand jury reporting,
is this is one example.
So we need a report on how we got to take
the full responsibility for funding this.
Thank you for your comment Ms. Asada.
And that concludes your public speakers for item two.
All right, I will move the item.
I'll second that.
Thank you, we have a motion made by Chair Ramachandran,
seconded by Council Member Unger
to accept the termination
of scheduled outstanding committee items as is on roll.
Council Member Brown.
Aye.
Council Member Unger.
Aye.
Council Member Wong.
Aye.
And Chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
This motion passes with four ayes
to accept the termination of scheduled outstanding
committee items as is, also known as your pending list.
Moving to item three.
Receive an information and report on the city auditor
on the audit of Kids First Oakland Children's Fund
for fiscal year 2018 through 2019
through fiscal year 23 through 24,
and you do have two speakers for this item.
Thank you.
If the city auditor is here to present, we will hear you.
Thank you.
And auditor Houston, will six to eight minutes
be sufficient for your presentation?
I can try.
Okay.
So good morning committee members, staff,
and members of the public.
Michael C. Houston, the city auditor.
I'm here to present the results of our audit
of the Kids First Fund for Children and Youth.
Okay, so I will skip that slide
and introduce the audit team.
It consists of Assistant City Auditor Eduardo Luna,
Performance Audit Manager Stephanie Noble
who is here with me today,
and Senior Performance Auditor Mark Carnes.
Our audit objective is established
by the Kids First Oakland Fund for Children and Youth Act,
which voters first passed in 1996
and is codified in section 1300 of the city charter.
The objectives of the audit were to verify
that the city correctly calculate it
and set aside the appropriate amounts
to the kids' first fund,
as required by the kids' first Oakland Fund
for Children and Youth Act,
and to verify that the city met
the baseline spending requirements.
Now I'll more fully explain these requirements shortly.
The city auditor's office is meant to review
to set aside for the kids' first fund
and minimum spending requirements every year.
But the previous city auditor did not keep up
with the annual audit requirement due to competing priorities
and limited resources in the city auditor's office.
So to become current on the audit requirements,
this audit report covers fiscal years 18-19, 19-20,
20-21, 21-22, 22-23, and 23-24.
We issued this audit report on November 6th,
but that was actually a reissuance of an audit report
that we issued back on April 3rd, 2025.
The April 3rd, 2025 audit report
had the same general findings and recommendations,
but with a much larger impact
to the city's general purpose fund and the kids' birth fund.
Shortly after April 3rd,
we internally identified a potential error
stemming from the scope of the audit,
and we pulled it from our website,
replaced it with a notice stating that it had been pulled,
notified the original recipients of the report, which advised recipients including members
of this committee that we were determining whether to perform additional audit work.
We ended up performing additional audit work and confirmed that we had made an error in
the initially released audit report and made changes outlined in the errata section on
page seven.
In summary, the audit report that we initially published mischaracterized some 2018-19 transactions
as errors instead of late true-up transfers for periods as far back as fiscal year 12-13.
So our office, we follow government auditing standards which requires us to hold reports
and correct them when needed in published changes.
We strive to report results accurately and we publicly acknowledge and correct our errors
when the circumstances were to.
So thank you for your patience and understanding.
So a little bit of background, the Kids First Fund was established by the Kids First Oakland
Fund for Children and Youth Act, which originated from Measure K, which Oakland voters passed
in 1996.
The act was reauthorized and extended for an additional 12 years, effective July 1st,
2021 through June 30th, 2033.
Our audit tested the City's compliance with two separate requirements outlined in the
Kids First Oakland Fund for Children and Youth Act.
The left shows the set-aside requirement based on unrestricted general purpose fund revenues.
Each year the city must set aside 3% of its actual unrestricted general purpose fund revenues
and designate it to the kids first fund.
This is a restricted fund for the sole purpose of supporting children and youth services
as outlined in section 1301 in the city charter.
Money cannot be used for services that only incidentally benefit youth.
The Human Services Department manages the kids' first fund by awarding grants to nonprofits
to Oakland Unified School District or other agencies that provide programs for children
and youth.
Errors in calculation for a fiscal year shall be corrected by the adjustment in the set-aside
depending upon whether the actual unrestricted general purpose fund revenues are greater
or less than the estimate.
The greater or less underscores that the 3% set aside
must be exact, not 2.99, not 3.01.
And there is a spending requirement as well.
This is shown on the right.
The act requires the city to spend an amount at least equal
to 5.35% of the city's actual general purpose fund
expenditures on services for children and youth.
Specifically, this minimum expenditure requirement
is for sources outside of the Kids First Fund.
Expenditures that can be counted
toward the baseline spending requirement
include programs such as Head Start,
internships, mentoring,
and after-school recreational activities.
The 5.35 represents the level of spending
spent on children and youth services
back in fiscal year 1995-96
when the act was initially passed.
Importantly, this spending requirement is for funds
other than the Kids First Fund,
and not necessarily the general purpose fund.
Because set aside and baseline spending requirements
are to be based on actual revenues and expenditures,
the finance department makes initial estimates
each budget cycle and then makes adjustments
following the close of the fiscal year
when the city has information about actual amounts
as confirmed by the city's audited financial statements.
Adjustments then appear in the following year's budget,
two years after the initial estimate.
As an example, we are in fiscal year 2526.
Staff began preparing the fiscal year 2526 budget
in the spring and issued a biannual budget
covering this fiscal year in June 2025
at the end of fiscal year 2425.
For the 2526 budget, the administration projected
what revenues it had anticipated receiving by July 2026.
Based on that estimate, the staff then set aside
3% of the anticipated unrestricted general purpose revenues.
Staff will not know how much money the city actually earns
in unrestricted general purpose revenues
until after the fiscal year closes.
Usually that happens a few months after fiscal year end.
But then the city's, when the city's books are audited,
wherein there may be adjustments in advance
of the release of the annual comprehensive financial report.
auditor Houston is another five four and a half minutes okay yeah I could be
that was probably the chunkiest slide okay sorry we just have it's our last
thing of the year and the summary is it's it's a long process right lots of
steps so we found the audit found the city did not always meet the 3% set
side requirement. Over the six-year audit scope, the city overpaid the fund in
three years and underpaid the fund in three years. The adjustments made did not
match the amounts owed based on our calculation. Based on the requirements of
the law to correct for the cumulative differences, we recommend that the budget
bureau make a one-time adjustment from the kids first fund back into the
general purpose fund. This is Appendix B which shows the two-year adjustments
cycle that I was just explaining.
It's extended out because the scope of our audit,
beginning in 1819, actually had some late adjustments dating
back to 2013, 14.
So basically, just kind of details.
I won't get in.
I won't try to explain it.
Appendix B of the audit report.
But it does show the historical true ups or adjustments
made of transfers between the kids' first fund
and the general purpose fund.
The bottom right corner shows $203,973,
which was the amount of transfers
that the general purpose fund is owed
based on the six year audit scope.
The act is complex, it applies to multiple funds,
requires estimates and adjustments
based on actuals and timing,
necessarily results in adjustments and subsequent years to ensure compliance.
It also requires ongoing legal interpretation to determine which revenues should be restricted.
Staff have drafted guidance which Director Johnson included in the response to the report.
We recommend that the finance department consult with the city attorney's office to finalize
and adopt formal guidance and document the methodology for future reference.
The audit also found that the city met or exceeded
the baseline spending requirement for the period reviewed.
Again, the city is required by the act to spend
an amount equivalent to or greater than 5.35%.
The city met or exceeded the baseline
for all the fiscal years.
It cleared the requirement by as low as $571,000 in 21-22,
And as high as $29.3 million in 2324.
The 5.35 is at least, it's not exact
like the 3.0 set aside.
So that takes us to recommendations.
First, that the finance department should finalize
and adopt formal guidance for adjusting set asides,
calculating baseline spending on eligible expenses,
defining the timing of true-ups
for the two-year adjustment cycle,
and validating interpretations
restricted general purpose fund revenues, and then we recommend that there be
transfer made to correct for the passover and under payments between 1819
and 2324, and that this one-time correction is documented for future
reference. The administration agreed with the recommendations and their formal
response and implementation plan are included at the end of the audit report.
This audit report with all our others is posted on our website.
This is our contact tree link that takes you to all our various sites and platforms.
I'd like to thank the staff from the Human Services Department, the Finance Department,
the City Attorney's Office and the City Administrator's Office for the insight and cooperation throughout
this audit, and thank you, members of the committee, for your time.
you colleagues questions so this sort of percentage based budgeting strikes me
as trying to meet a moving target because the amounts of revenues are
changing year to year can I ask you to pull back a little bit and tell me your
opinion of this general theory of percentage based budgeting and whether
it's a good idea for us very interesting question councilmember um yeah it well
and I'm it's interesting I have a lot of feelings on this because we just
audited this and it's as you could tell from my really verbose explanations
first of all it's really complicated so when you have those kinds of
specific percentages it's really taxing on the organization right and you know
it's for the last of as many budget cycles as I can remember we're looking
for every penny right so when you have something that's fixed particular bit
effects like this supposedly unrestricted general purpose fund, that could be, you
know, they could limit the City Council and the City Administration's ability to
consider where it needs to make difficult decisions, right? That said, this
is up, you know, this is something that can be amended. It has on two previous
occasion in 2008 and 2009, and the City Council actually just renewed it for
21, 23, but it could be amended by taking it to the voters.
All of that said, it's something that it wasn't just materialized, it came from something.
So this was a policy decision that was made back in the day.
I haven't seen anything like this.
Councilmember Wong.
Thanks.
Through the Chair, just following up on my colleagues' questions, I'm just curious
if too, since many of these funds are being then given
to nonprofit organizations to deliver services
for children and youth,
does this type of model create uncertainty for them?
Like when we have to make corrections
for overpayments or underpayments,
does this have impacts on the providers?
Or is that, do we have methodologies
within the finance department that ensures
that the providers are not feeling
the impacts of our miscalculations?
Yeah, I think that's a good question, Councilman.
Thank you.
I think the people who would be best able to answer
that question would be the OFCY staff at Human Services.
But what you said makes sense to me.
And I know we worked closely with them through the audit
process, and I know that they were awaiting the results of our audit, but I don't want
to speculate or speak on their behalf.
Okay.
No worries.
And then just my other question is for Exhibit 2, you had noted that 2023 to 2024, there
was the high of spending of $29.3 million.
Do you all know what in excess of that bar that you have on the chart, what that money
was spent on? Yeah, so that was attributed $29.3 million over the requirement, was due
to the infusion of funds from the Oakland Children's Initiative, Measure AA, passed
in 2018. So for operational uses it started in 2022-23. So that's when we first started
seen that measure 8-8 funds in 2223 and you can see how much more money was
spent right okay all right that's the end of my questioning thank you
councilman Brown yep thank you so much to the auditor's office and team for
the follow-up report I know I had the opportunity to meet with you and the
team a couple times so most of my questions have been been answered I did
have a question similar to council member Wong around impacts to any of the
youth serving organizations and so I'll just ask I'll follow up with OFC why on
that and then I guess for this item is this just a motion to receive and file I
defer to the city auditor's office but I don't see a requirement in the charter
that this go to the full council so the preference of staff and the committee
we're happy to present everywhere but these are two recommendations focused to
the finance department. I'd like it to go on consent to the next council meeting.
Okay, so I'll make that motion. I believe that that is the Tuesday, December the
16th City Council meeting. And I'll second that. I have two questions. Firstly, thank
Thank you for the report and for clarifying the differences between the original report
presented.
I have two questions.
I don't know if that's more for you or administration, but so the $204,000 that you're recommending
goes back to the general fund.
Has that already happened as a one-time fund, one-time transfer?
I mean, I know it is already in the general fund, but from the kids' first bucket to otherwise.
I think I should defer to our finance director, Mr. Johnson.
It'll be reflected in 26-27, Turope.
Thank you.
And then I'm looking at the table you presented that's
also in the report on page four.
When it comes to the spending, I realize
that this is a very convoluted formula,
and definitely upon expiry, I think,
warrants some revisiting about how we structure this.
But I'm curious as to why there was significant overspending
in the last fiscal year in 23-24 compared to the other years.
I mean, if $40-something million is what we were required,
we spent over $70-something million.
Do you have an explanation or understanding
of why the departments chose that?
Yeah, council member, it's to measure
funding that hit beginning fiscal year 22-23, which yeah it's a parcel tax
but I might hand a microphone to performance audit manager Stephanie
Noble. Thank you for the question council member um yeah so it is measure
AA. The spending requirement unlike the set-aside requirement is for all funds
outside of the kids first fund so when there are new sources of revenue that
are dedicated to spending for children and youth,
that then goes towards that spending requirement.
You'll note that we had the general purpose fund
separate from that.
So that was the infusion of new revenues
directed towards kids' spending.
So theoretically, we could completely
eliminate the amount of money coming from the general fund
if Measure A funds fill that gap in the next few years?
I would also direct that to our finance director.
Thank you, Brad Johnson, director of finance.
So the 5.35% baseline spending requirement
is across all services for youth.
So the fact that we're over that spending requirement
due to the infusion of AA funds
doesn't mean that general fund support
for things like Head Start or Parks
is not what we're using the resource for.
We are over that baseline spending requirement
because of AA existing, but it does not mean that
because AA exists, you don't have a service demand
for the other services that come out of the general fund,
so it's a service question.
We wouldn't violate the charter requirements
if we were to, for instance,
reduce spending on parks and recreation or Head Start
because of AA, so we wouldn't violate the charter
requirements, but you would still have the service impact
from that, and that's distinct, as I think the auditor
was saying, from the baseline spending requirement
is a distinction from the 3% set-aside,
which is not above a number, it's exactly a 3% number,
which is why you have the $200,000 adjustment.
So that's a precise number versus a minimum.
And so we can be as far above the minimum as we want,
provided it's the right basket of services
within the restrictions of funds,
but the 3% is supposed to be exactly the 3%
and then trued up.
Thank you.
And just for clarification,
Measure AA also has non-supplantation requirements,
so the interplay between the two measures
is more complicated than it might seem.
Got it.
So for example, measure A cannot fund Head Start,
is that correct?
The language of measure A is specific,
but it generally has non-supplantation
for prior allocated spending.
It is allowed to supplant funding
that is lost from external sources.
So specifics on Head Start are more complicated,
but there is a general prohibition
on non-supplantation of AA funds
that the finance director can also weigh on.
Accurate statement. These are all I think to the point that councilmember Unger was bringing up earlier all of our ballot measures
this
Measure a a interact with one another so that they're complex because they it's not just one and then the other
They there's these interactions that we have to measure and ensure we're meeting all of the requirements
Sort of collectively and together along with the service needs and demands and policy priorities that this body sets
Thank you
if there's no other questions
We will move to public comment.
I want to call your name.
Please approach the podium.
You do have two minutes, Mr. David Boatwright and Mrs. Sada.
David Boatwright, District 4.
This audit obviously covers important and necessary funding
by the city.
However, it only addresses the city's funding obligations
and doesn't comment on the specifics of how the money was
spent and who benefited.
I would think that when an average of $67 million per year
spent that it would be important to say how the funds were administered that is
who received how much in grants and what the grants were spent for and what
groups benefited or if they were not all grants then the same information for the
administering entities involved. Also how much of the funds were spent for
administrative and other things the youth did not directly benefit from. This
type of counting should be done for all grants and significant funding for all
city spending for all benefiting groups who deserve to get the maximum benefit
from such funding. I hope the city will require such record-keeping when any
future funding is authorized. As for the future city measures the requirement for
similar accounting needs to be very explicit as without that the city
auditor has less compelling reasons to perform thorough audit. Another thing is
Because when you put the comments on this, you can't see all the exhibits, so it's cutting
off the bottom portion of the information, and it would help if K-TOP could do something
to move that translation to some other place.
Can Tint not have any heat in this meeting all day because I'm getting sick in here.
Somebody needs to answer that question.
I don't know the answer.
I would love heat as well.
It's freezing.
We'll talk to facilities to make sure the room is at appropriate temperature.
First and foremost, I need to thank the auditor for a very thorough report.
I'm concerned that we have not done a collaborative working with the OUSD budget issue.
And what we should be doing is look at what they're going to have to do in terms of elimination
of services and resources and back up, if we can, using kids first funding for things
like after school programs.
That's how you work and that's how it should be done, but I don't know if y'all are going
to do that.
But pay attention to the budget tomorrow to see if we can use kids first money to cover
anything that they had to eliminate.
It says in the report that you did not always meet the set-aside requirements.
It says in the report that the Budget Bureau's corrections were not always accurate.
It says in the report that the Budget Bureau provided partial documentation, not full documentation.
It says in the report that the city staff expressed some uncertainty relating to kids-first
requirements.
And the most important thing from my point of view is that you need to create policies
and procedures for cultivating the kids-first set of sides.
So I wasn't paying attention, because I'm over there freezing to death, which you said,
But I hope some of these areas were covered in the recommendation about policies and procedures
and some of the missing components as far as what is that.
And lastly, I cannot see how we have the managing of the money coming from the human services
department when we haven't had a human service director.
And we put the former employee who works in workforce and economic development and human
services to run it. Thank you for your comment, Ms. Asada. That concludes your public speakers
for item three. We do have a motion made by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Chair Ramachandran
to receive and forward this to the December 16th City Council agenda and that is on consent
on roll. Councilmember Brown, aye. Councilmember Unger, aye. Councilmember Wong, aye. And Chair
Ramachandran, aye. This motion passes with four ayes to receive and forward this item
to the December 16th, City Council agenda,
and that is on consent.
Moving to item four.
Adopt the following pieces of legislation.
One, a resolution recommending a civil service board
of exemption of the classification of payroll administrator
from the operation of civil service.
Two, a resolution recommending the civil service board
to exemption of the classification
of a procurement of contracts administrator
from the operation of civil service.
and three and ordinance amending
the salary schedule ordinance number 12187
to a full-time classification of payroll administrator,
B full-time classification of recruitment
and contracts administrator,
C amend the salary or full-time classification
of park equipment operator,
and D to amend the salary or part-time classification
of senior aid, part-time and share compliance
and with the city Oakland's minimum wage ordinance
and you do have one speaker for this item.
It's a full HR analyst for human resources management.
The item before you today is a routine maintenance action for the city's classification plan.
Human resources management brings items like this before you approximately two to three
times per year.
And these items usually result in creating new classifications or making amendments to
existing classifications.
I'd like to cover the items in reverse.
I'll start with the increase to the temporary part time senior aid classification.
This adjustment will bring the salary rate into alignment with the new minimum wage ordinance,
the rate that's taking effect for calendar year 2026.
HRM performs an analysis each year once we've been provided with the new minimum wage ordinance
need to have their salary rates
amended.
In this case, the only
classification that requires an
adjustment this year is senior
aid.
The new rate is $17.34 per hour
and this reflects an increase of
45 cents over calendar year 2025
per hour.
Regarding the park equipment
operator classification, we are
recommending a change in the
so we are recommending a change to the salary to bring it into alignment with other similarly situated
Classifications in the city
the Oakland Public Works Department purchased new equipment and it has resulted in a change to the gross vehicle weight rating as
regulated by the Department of Motor Vehicles
The new equipment exceeds the class B requirements for commercial drivers licenses
Therefore we needed to adjust the qualifications for the classification to bring them into alignment with the class a commercial driver's license requirements
Given these new requirements
We are going to align this classification with the pay rate of other similarly situated classifications that require a class a license
This will ensure proper compensation for the necessary qualifications and ensure compliance with DMV regulations
Lastly, we are proposing the creation of two new administrator positions within the finance department
There are two new bureaus being created to house payroll operations and procurement and contracts operations
Because we are creating these new bureaus. We need to create new bureau head positions
We are proposing the creation of a payroll administrator and a procurement and contracts administrator
These classifications will align with the pay rate of existing bureau head
Classifications that already exist in the finance department. This includes the controller the Treasury administrator the revenue and tax administrator
and the budget administrator
Advancing the exemption resolutions to the civil service board will ensure that these classifications are properly allocated in the city's classification plan
per section nine point zero two F of the city charter
classifications are recommended for exemption based on their position in
the organization, their scope of authority and responsibility, their
independence of action, and their consequence of error. Staff recommends
advancing these different pieces of legislation to the full council. I am
available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. I will start with a
question. I don't have a problem with increasing any of these specific roles
and also in terms of materials
ever so slightly I do have a.
Question about the senior aid
position what what does that
position do.
Through the chair they provide
light clerical support is for
senior citizens who are seeking
to remain in the workforce and
that is the exact kind of part
time work that they're
providing.
Thank you I know we have a
recruitment issue in the city of
Oakland for a lot of positions
recruiting at pretty much exactly minimum wage.
And to me, this is the same problem
in Head Start and other positions.
When you could make far more money per hour
working in fast food or anything else,
why would you do a strenuous but important job
of working with either our youth or seniors?
Would you contemplate raising that
from what you've brought your proposing here
to even a little higher?
Because it just seems patently unfair
And that we won't get a qualified set of applicants
with the right solo.
Through the chair, if I may respond.
We are aware of various salary concerns
throughout the city and our pay structure.
And this is information, again, that's not new to us.
We would have to contemplate a salary survey
to look at the external market.
We'd also have to work closely with HRM administration
and the budget bureau to determine
if this is something that would be within our means
to propose changes in the future.
Thank you.
And would you be able to do that by the next finance committee
meeting, even if it's just slightly more?
But I think it's going to be very difficult to support.
And if this is a position that's going
to be proactively recruited, because I also
know we have lots of positions that just fall by the wayside
in HR and don't have the time to actually be recruited.
But if we're actively trying to recruit for this position,
I think it's going to be really hard to get qualified people
to do it for something so low.
So is it possible to bring this back to the next finance committee meeting with the slightly
Even ever so slightly higher salary if I may enlist assistance from my HR director Mary Howe or the finance
director in terms of
next steps
Good morning finance committee members. This is Mary Howe from the HR Department
So I think that this is a representative classification and if so, then that would be subject to collective bargaining
to make sure that we're not
working to make sure we're
looking at this and that we're
working. So I think that. Yes
we wouldn't be able to we could
probably talk about a ways that
we can possibly survey for this.
Classification by the next
meeting but we wouldn't have
any results to report back and
again if it's a represent a
classification it would all be
subject to collective bargaining
for any additional wage
increases. But we are trying to
meet the city's minimum wage
ordinance with this. Thank you
for this one position?
Well, we are, well, we are open with all of our contracts.
All, with all six groups, all our MOUs expire
on June 30th, 2026.
So it would be rolled into that process
as we talk about wages.
Okay, well, is it possible to bifurcate this position
and vote on the others
that are not even anywhere near minimum wage
so that this, that item can come back
I mean certainly I'm sorry I guess I'm not quite understanding how does that how would you contemplate having the item come back this same resolution but just the one position that requires bargaining to raise the to raise the salary well we recommend that we definitely not violate the city's minimum wage ordinance by moving it up now and any future increases we recommend that it be subject to the entire bargaining process.
So another question I have realistically are you going to be advertising this position on the website anytime soon because if it's going to take another year for this to go on the list of priorities well there's time to increase the salary, but I I just think it's not fair as a city to be putting out important public facing service positions, saying that we're advertising it at minimum wage or barely above.
Okay, so I was just informed that we have four incumbents, so this is not necessarily
for recruitment purposes, but this is to make sure the incumbent's rate of pay keeps pace
with the city's ordinance.
So we're currently paying people below minimum wage?
Because the city's minimum wage ordinance will adjust in 2026.
This is to make sure that it is effective January 1, 2026.
So right now, as we're contemplating this, can we increase that from $17 to $19, for
example, right now?
We recommend that that be surveyed before we take any sort of unilateral action.
And I was just informed, so I correct my earlier statement, this is an unrepresented classification,
so not subject to collective bargaining, but we still recommend that it be reviewed as
part of a salary survey process, which is consistent with how we adjust other classification
wages.
Thank you, and I'm happy I will hear from my colleagues in a minute.
But since we have the power to do this, as this is not a represented position,
my personal preference is to move that number from 17 to 20.
I find it highly unlikely that that alone is going to create a significant
budgetary impact, but we do need to recruit quality people for these positions
and pay those who are doing these important jobs well.
But I will hear from my other colleagues.
Councilman Branger.
I doubt whether they're rep or unrep,
but I doubt you'll receive any pushback
from the incumbents or the bargaining units
on raising their wage.
You know, in the report that you state
that there is a restructuring of payroll
going on to centralized payroll,
has the city noticed the affected unions
of the intent to restructure and centralized?
So this action occurred, I think,
with the mid-cycle adjustment for 2425.
Is that correct, Finance Director Johnson?
Okay, so it's already been in the budget,
but in terms of actually effectuating the process.
So Local 21, for example, is the largest affected group
and they are aware, but they've been waiting on the city
to come up with a plan, because in order to meet
and confer in good faith, we would have to describe
how the centralization process would work.
So is it your intent to create the position
before a meet and confer process
about what the position would entail
and whether it would take jobs away from represented units?
We are not taking, there is a current
but, excuse me, payroll manager in place.
This is to upgrade that incumbents classification.
It's also unrepresented because we need to create
the structure in order to kind of bring in
all of the decentralized payroll functions.
So, but you're creating two new positions, right?
in payroll.
No, just one.
I'm sorry, one at an unwrapped management role?
It is currently an unwrapped management role, and we are changing it from a manager to an
administrator to be on par with the other bureaus in the finance department.
Will this change anything about the working conditions of other payroll people who are
represented?
No.
This just affects that administrator position.
But you have not done any meet and confer with Local 21 about that?
We have not because the finance department is still in the process of creating the structure
in order to bring in all of the centralized processes.
It feels a little bit like putting the cart before the horse to me.
I think we need to – if we're going to be restructuring central payroll, I feel like
that is something that the bargaining units need to have some meat and confer over.
I disagree on that.
I disagree on that.
I think that, I think how we structure our operations as a management right.
I think that the effects of the centralization of payroll would be based on
reporting structure, work location, work hours, work schedules, etc.
Those would be the things that would be within the realm of our meet and confer obligations.
Not about the structure itself within payroll.
Payroll, this is a management structure.
So we are trying to create the capacity in order to bring in the payroll functions.
with the centralization people would be moving
from department, you'd have like maybe a police payroll
person who would be moving to central or a fire.
For example, yes.
And that's the changing of people from one department
to another is not something that should be met
and conferred over.
That's exactly what I just described.
So in order to bring that, those will be the impacts
that we will be discussing and meet and confer.
But right now we are creating the structure
and capacity because in the existing structure,
Right now, it would be one payroll manager
overseeing 30 or 40 payroll representatives,
and that does not work.
So we are creating the necessary hierarchy
in order to welcome in those staff.
Okay, I think it's the wrong order,
but I appreciate your discussion.
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, other questions, comments?
Council Member Wong.
Yes so on the senior aid position in the compliance with the minimum wage
ordinance is this the only position that or there other positions in the city
that are poised to also we need to bring into compliance in 2026 this is the
only one and I think this is also consistent with the item that we brought
before this council or and also this group last year this committee last
year this is this is an annual adjustment that we bring to you pretty
much. Okay. So this is not new. And can you also elaborate on why is it important to do
the market survey instead of, you know, I think councilmember Robin Tonton's request
seems reasonable to do a minor adjustment that could be meaningful. So what would the
market surveys purpose serve? So through the chair, I think the doing a market survey before
or we adjust wages is a consistent practice.
We want to make sure that we are keeping pace
with our neighbors, with our competitors.
And sometimes we don't find comparable classifications,
in which case then we would have to make
some certain decisions about how to adjust this appropriately.
But I think that we just recommend that we be consistent
and not take this out of an ordinary process
that we undertake for all classifications.
Okay, and so it's just to be clear.
So this is the only position that then consistently
each year is at the bottom of the minimum,
basically at our minimum wage
and needs to be addressed each year.
It is at or close to minimum wage
and it's affected by the annual adjustment
to the city's ordinance.
Okay, okay, thank you.
Thank you.
I have a question to the finance department.
If we bring this back to the next finance committee meeting
at the start of the year, I wanted to,
I know that we can do retroactive wage increases,
and can I clarify that that could happen
if we passed this early next year?
Could we retroactively increase the salary,
actually, I think we technically can.
I would look to HR as to whether or not
that is saying when under our legal set with,
there's no reason we couldn't do a retro payment
in terms of technically effectuating it.
Okay, so retroactive to what date?
I think, yeah, I think what the chair is asking is
if we were to pass this ordinance as is right now
and then they were to retroactively increase the salary
for the job classification, could it be retroactive
to January 1 and then us permit a retro pay?
We can do that technically, I don't know
if there's some other HR principle or rule
we'd be violating in that,
but technically we can handle it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other, Councilman Brown.
Excellent.
Really appreciate the dialogue that we've been having.
I guess I have a couple questions and or comments.
So through the chair to our finance director,
I guess I'm curious what type of precedent
we would be setting if, for example,
for this singular position we were to,
because I definitely agree we should be paying livable wages,
but if for the singular position,
we decided to switch it to $25 an hour,
how does that come into play with maybe any
of the other positions that are probably at that 17,
some of the work that's coming
into the city and that's why
we're working close to that
seventeen thirty four wage.
I mean I would concur with our
HR director that the best
practice to market survey and
go through that process.
I would note that the senior
aid positions are.
Considered to be part of a
program by which we're
employing people that are at
retirement age to come in and
work they're not sort of a
normal job class with the city
and that's why they've been.
Closer to the minimum wage line
originally started with the
federal program to get seniors who want to earn extra income into the workforce
and that we're a participant in that. So it's a little bit different from all the
job classes that's why it's a non-represented position as opposed to
it being a normal sort of represented and recruited for classification. It's not a
best practice or as our HR director said but it is unreped so it is not we don't
have the same vulnerability we would have if this was a represented job
I see.
And then when was the last time that we actually completed a salary survey of, you know, some
of the positions within the city to ensure that we are, you know, I guess, paying a livable
wage and I hear you, Director Howe, in saying that, you know, this is the only position
do that we're trying to get folks up to speed on,
but I feel like maybe an ask that I have
is to have that verified, right?
To make sure that genuinely this isn't the only one.
Through the chair to Council Member Brown,
certainly we can do a second verification,
but this is the classification that we bring
to this committee on an annual basis to adjust,
because it is the right, is the one classification
that is right there at the minimum wage mark.
And so, and thank you for the history, Director Johnson.
And in terms of when we conduct salary surveys,
we generally conduct surveys
of our benchmark classifications
when they are being affected by success or negotiations.
So we do work with internal staff
as well as our external contractors
to conduct that salary survey,
because it is a very arduous,
it's a very comprehensive survey look.
Yeah, I imagine so.
I guess I'm thinking about,
I guess last year I was working in the state legislature
and they went through a whole change around their salary,
especially like entry level staff
and working to bring everyone up to livable wages.
And so I guess I'm curious as we approach the mid cycle,
what does it look like to actually begin such a survey
within the city of Oakland,
so that we are actually bringing folks up
into more of what we genuinely think is a livable wage,
kind of based on the number
that council member Ron Matondin threw out there.
But I feel like we would want to at least have that verified.
So if I may seek clarification, what is considered,
I mean, I guess, what number are we targeting
as a livable wage?
Because so for a lot of our entry level classifications,
they are represented and they're represented
most likely by SEIU.
And so if that's the case,
and that would be part of an entire bargaining strategy
that we would be bringing before your counsel.
But we have yet to develop that strategy.
And so if that is something that you seek for us to consider,
We can certainly add that to the calculus.
I see.
I guess, you know, to the Chair,
in this moment, I recognize that,
you know, staff is telling us that, you know,
this is the singular position that we need to ensure,
kind of meets the Oakland standard for a 2026,
as far as minimum wage.
But I guess to the Chair, you know,
is there an action that potentially we could take,
we would want to take as far as like a report
or a report back on something more specific
to really try to have more of an analysis
on how we should be increasing the wages
versus it just being singular for just one position.
Yeah, no, I appreciate everything that's been said.
I think that we absolutely need a comprehensive salary survey,
but it doesn't really take that much
to say we're increasing the salary from $17 to $20.
I don't think we need a survey to do that.
Because $20 per hour is not a living wage.
$25 per hour is hardly a living wage.
I think in the upcoming budget cycle,
we should address all of the positions that
make under $20 an hour and at least standardize it
to $20 or something above close to minimum wage.
But because we have this in front of us,
my understanding is this is an ordinance that already
requires two readings.
So once this passes, we'll already be into the new year.
So I don't think there's a,
since we're already going into 2026 timeline,
I am open to this coming back to the next finance committee
and then having its two readings,
since we're already missing the mark for the end of this year.
If that gives you more time to increase it to $20 an hour
for this specific position,
or I'm happy to move ahead and make that amendment
Today and then we can also reassess in the upcoming budget cycle. What all positions make under $20 an hour
So chair Rama Chandra
It is our recommendation that this move forward today so that we can ensure that we keep pace
with minimum the minimum wage ordinance that's effective January 1 2026 and
And I think that in order to afford staff adequate time
To look into this matter. We recommend coming back to the Finance Committee in January
So then my recommendation will be today we move forward with in with increasing
that specific role to $20 an hour and then early next year we can request a
report for all the other positions that make under $20 so we can standardize
that and identify which of those positions need to go into bargaining.
Yeah I would say my concern with doing I get that overall we do it sounds like
best practice to do these surveys but when these are such when they're low
wage jobs and we're slightly increasing the salary I mean what is the cost of
doing a survey do we wind up spending more on studying the issue when it could
literally the cost of conducting the survey overrides the cost of just
raising somebody's salary you know I think so with that I'll second the
amendment, but I think sometimes we just have these trade-offs and especially for
the lower-wage jobs, but just out of curiosity, how much does it cost to carry
out a survey? So through the chair to Councilmember Wong, it would be staff, our
internal staff conducting the survey, so it is we are already, you know, being paid
for our work, so we would be doing that. And I think the other thing too is that
we don't generally, when we look at salary increases, we look at salary
increases as it affects the entire organizational structure and so to
sometimes pluck out unique classifications and increase their
salaries there is a there's a compaction issue that could occur and so going
upwards because we have built-in structures that say you're maybe the
person the classification that supervises you if we bump you up then we
have to bump up that your supervisor and your supervisor supervisor and on up the
In order to mean a certain percentage cushion that is within best practice as well
and so so I think that that is the other reason why we we recommend a
salary survey to
To determine this but certainly we defer to your committee if if you seek to do a different action
Okay, thank you
Can you clarify what your second was to council member?
Okay, thank you, so I will clarify my amendment that is in the legislation to
The
The legislation specific to part three of the rules that are being the salary schedules that are being amendments section five
The following classification is amended as of January 1st 2026 and ordinance number one two one eight seven CMS and unit you j1
0.75 0.001 pay grade table to read as follows senior aid PT class PP
142 the minimum moving currently reads as moving from
16.89 to 17.34 and my amendment is from moving to
16.89 to
20.00
Do we have public comment moving to our public speaker miss Asada?
This discussion on the minimum wage
The minimum wage for persons who work in the fast food industry in California is $20.25.
The minimum wage for Oakland's hotel employees is $18.36 per hour if you provide health benefits.
If you don't provide health benefits, it's $24.48 per hour.
California state law minimum wage for health care employees is $25 per hour.
So our minimum wage is really below what it should be, very much so.
So thank you for bringing the point up.
But we got to work to get it better than what it is.
I know OUSD's minimum wage for staff who work in custodial is $17 per hour.
Lastly, I want to thank Ms. Wong, your assistant, Mr. Michael.
He's a very intelligent, effective individual.
I had the honor of having a conversation with him.
and you're blessed to have him in your office.
Okay, thank you.
Also to clarify, thank you to Building Services
for turning the heat on.
I know the room's already getting warmer.
Thank you.
We have a motion made by,
we have a motion made by Chair Ramachandran,
seconded by Council Member Wong
to approve as amended the recommendations of staff
and to forward all pieces of legislation
to the December 16th City Council agenda
and that is on consent.
Okay, content, yeah.
Council Member Brown.
And so I just, really quick question.
So I just wanted to double check,
will we be moving forward with an expedited salary survey?
Or what is the status of that?
Because I think I'm still insistent on,
I think in this moment we are working
to change one single position.
And my concern is ensuring that we are, you know,
taking care of everyone that would fall under this umbrella.
My plan is, and I'm happy to work with you on this,
is to bring a request for an informational report
and schedule it at the First Rules Committee of next year
to conduct a survey of how many,
of what all classifications make under $25 an hour,
which of those positions are represented
require bargaining which of them don't and see if an expedited salary survey
can be done specifically to those positions that make under $25 an hour
okay that sounds good and then council I'd prefer to go to non-consent so we
can address the labor concerns that I have thank you I'll restate the motion
we have a motion made by a chair one return during seconded by councilmember
to approve as amended the recommendations of staff and to forward all pieces of legislation to the December 16th City Council agenda on non consent with the amendments made to the third piece of legislation which is the ordinance with the amendments as follows to page two section five raising the rate to 1689 to $20 $20.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
staff for comment yes I'm sorry if I may I'm to the extent that we may be
discussed this may be part of labor strategy I I request that this matter
actually be addressed in closed session versus in a public session so please
put place that under consideration for future discussions about wages for
represent the classifications thank you thank you we are not now moving to
item 5 adopt a resolution waving the competitive multi-step solicitation
process for IT contracts and local local small local business enterprise
program requirements and authorizing the city administrator to execute a five
year professional service agreement with HDL software in the amount not to exceed
1,670,000 for the provision of technical support, ongoing maintenance, and software upgrades
for local tech software solutions and printing mailing service and you do have one speaker.
Good morning committee members.
My name is Hiwi Dang.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today.
So before you this morning is staff recommendation that will allow the department to end the
current software contract with a company called HDL Software LLC one year early
and into a new five-year agreement starting next month and ending in January
2031. There are a couple of reasons for this and they basically have to deal
with the need to integrate the current caching system that Citi implementing is
currently implementing and there's a need to do that in 2026 so we definitely
We need to do that with the current software that we have.
And of course due to the current contract expiring by January 20, 20, we would then
need to basically incur additional cost if we were to go out and solicit for a new software
contract.
Not only the cost to integrate the software, but we're also going to be incurring cost
to basically redo the entire system from the scratch.
So that's the reason why the staff
is making the recommendation to you
to simply allow us to end the current contract
and into a new contract starting in January, 26,
with a five-year new contract.
Obviously, there's some benefits to the city for doing this.
HDL, the company that actually provide the software,
also benefit from it as well.
Staff clearly provided in the staff report.
So with that, staff basically is requesting for two actions.
First, we request that you waive the comparative bidding
process and the small local business enterprise program,
given the uniqueness of the software
that we have had since 2016.
Second, you authorize the city administrator
to execute a new contract for five years,
starting next month and ending in 2031.
The total compensation, including
licensing, maintenance support, and of course the printing and mailing services, the total five-year contract is not to exceed 1.67 million dollars.
With that, Stav and I are having our answer. I'll already answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.
Thank you so much. And I have the opportunity to be briefed on this in more detail, and I appreciate your department's efforts to proactively see
how we can extend a contract before it expires,
and to try to negotiate positive developments from the city.
I know there's a lot of aspects of this software
that we can tap into to improve our efficiency,
so I am supportive of this.
Colleagues, any questions, comments?
Public comment?
Ms. Asada.
Yeah, this is a good thing when you can perceive
that you can do better or you have a need
for which this current contract doesn't provide.
But are there any negative fiscal consequences
when you end a contract?
You're not going to answer me.
Before the expiration date, if it's not a fiscal consequence,
any consequence at all, and if that's the case.
And then waving the competitive bid process,
you can guarantee that this vendor is the best vendor
and no other vendor exists that can provide better services.
Is that why you're waving the process?
Would be my question if you could answer it,
but you can't, but thank you anyway.
I'm still freezing over here and I must say that all day.
My hands are cold.
Is anybody on the podium going to do anything?
I was told the heater was turned on.
I'm feeling a little bit of heat,
but perhaps not the level that both me
and you would like it to be.
That concludes your public comment for item five.
Thank you.
And just my comment about this is that
I do believe this company has the potential to do
quite a bit to positively benefit the city of Oakland.
And I've dug a little bit into what they can provide,
what they provide other cities,
and I think that this is a good opportunity for the city.
And I will make a motion.
Second.
Thank you.
We have a motion made by Chair Ramachandran,
seconded by Council Member Unger
to approve the recommendations of staff
and before this item to December 16th.
City Council agenda and that is on consent.
On roll, Council Member Brown.
Aye.
Council Member Unger.
Aye.
Councilmember Wong.
I will vote aye, but I had a quick question.
I actually wanted to ask of the finance department
on this item.
So this is related to, in short,
I'm dealing with a lot of nuisance businesses
in district two.
This is related to human trafficking and all that.
Brought this up a few times.
Sorry.
What I've observed with just,
just some of the issues like administratively in the city
is that there's like, you know,
we've got Ricardo Salas who does some intake.
We have you all who work on,
we have a lot of unlicensed businesses too.
They're just straight up unlicensed.
We sent over that list to you.
So thank you for looking into that.
But could this software,
is it possible for us to have these integrations?
Because what I'm noticing is,
whether it's EWD, planning and building,
OPD and the ABAT team or new all,
we're all working on these fractured systems,
people have their own spreadsheets,
and if there's a way for people to be on the same page,
for things to be integrated and flagged,
so we can shut down these nuisance businesses
that are hotspots of trafficking
and all types of other things.
To the committee, Nicole Welch,
Revenue and Tax Administrator,
I would love a CRM database for the city.
That is what, if we're asking for all of our actual systems
to talk to each other, we would be talking about
an overhaul of what we do as far as the city.
And that would be a customer
relational management database.
Where all of the individual systems would actually,
you would have one portal that you would walk into
and you would actually look at that.
As it stands right now, we do have a cooperation.
We are setting up a tip line.
So that will be an actual thing that will be happening.
I'm working with Telecom to get that happening
so that if people have tips of businesses
that they suspect are not operating,
they will be actually able to give a tip over,
leave a voicemail, and we'll go from that point on.
But we are actively in the field.
We are actively looking at different businesses.
We're looking at the data.
we will be sending out just an FYI, 74,000 postcards
to all parcel owners in Oakland,
advising them that if they do,
are renting out their location or anything like that,
that they are required to have a business license.
So the outreach is happening.
The annuitant, as she loves me to call her,
is actively educating, there will be billboards.
So we are out there, we are going to oversaturate Oakland,
letting them know that you are required
to have a business license.
Okay, wonderful, and this future CRM system,
it should be accessible not just by the finance department,
but other departments across the city?
It would be something that would be, it is not,
I, what I was saying is that ideally,
that is what you would have, we do not have that.
I'm not in IT, I don't know what the plan is on that one,
so that is would be on a high level,
If you would like all of these individual systems
to talk to each other, that would be something
that would be the best tool to have.
I don't know if that's happening.
I'm just giving you how it as and how it happens
in other jurisdictions that there is an actual CRM.
And that would be something that would be created,
but it would not be initiated by finance.
Okay, understood.
Thanks for that helpful explanation.
Thank you, I know we do have to restart the vote.
So if you have questions, please make sure we get them
before the vote's called.
And if for some reason I forget to recognize you
and I don't see it on time, just flag me down
or yell my name out loud, please,
so I can make sure we get to everyone
before the vote's called.
I think we're now ready to vote.
Thank you, Chair Ramachandra.
We have a motion made by Chair Ramachandra,
seconded by Council Member Unger
to approve the recommendations of staff
and before this item to the December 16th,
City Council agenda on consent on roll.
Council Member Brown.
Aye.
Council Member Unger.
Aye.
Council Member Wong.
Aye.
I will unmute you once we do the vote.
Thank you.
And Chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
Thank you.
The motion passes with four ayes
to approve the recommendation of the staff
and the board this item to December 16th.
City Council agenda on consent.
We are now at item six.
Adopt at Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency Resolution
approving the submission of recognized obligation of payment schedule and Oakland redevelopment
successor agency administrative budget for July 1st, 26 through June 30th, 27, and transmission
of the both in the countywide oversight board, the Alameda County auditor controller, and
the State Department of Finance for approval, and you do have two speakers for this item.
All right. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Brittany Hines, assistant to the Finance
Before you today is our annual report for the redevelopment successor agencies, ROPS.
This year we have, as of November 1st, 2025, there's 268.9 million in total outstanding obligations.
With $33.8 million in enforceable obligations through the end of fiscal year 2627.
I do want to point out we will be submitting a supplemental report to include one additional line item.
That'll be line item number 75, which is the uptown Prop 1C grant.
We have accrued some additional interest from this grant.
It is eligible to be transferred over to the city to go over to some project costs for reimbursement.
We've discussed this with the attorney's office, and they recommended for us to submit the supplemental along with the packet for you, for consideration when we take this over to city council.
This line will actually be managed by the economic and workforce development department because we're doing a really good job of winding down all the ORSA development functions here in this last few weeks.
So we're appreciative for them for being able to bring that to our attention.
In some, for the most part, this year's ROBS is primarily debt service,
which will obviously go out to September 1st of 2041.
is also $607,000 in administrative costs for this year,
project staff costs and then also the $200,000
in grant interest for the Uptown Prop 1C grant.
So, I'll pause there if you have any questions
over the rops, I'll be happy to address those for you.
Thank you, colleagues, any questions?
Okay, seeing none, public comment?
Calling our public speakers, David Boatwright
and Ms. Asada?
David Bowright, District Four,
if we're talking about item six,
I can't hear what's going on out there
if people don't speak into the mic
and make themselves heard.
So, and you speak very softly and that's okay,
but you have to get your mouth closer to the mic.
If this is item six,
if I understood this report correctly,
the city has an outstanding debt of $268 million
associated with this former redevelopment agency.
Is that amount decreasing or increasing, and at what rate?
I also did not see anything other than general categories
that these payments go for, and if these payments
impact the city's budget in any way.
I think the public deserves to know more
about this obligation and how it impacts
the city's finances.
As an aside, I tried calling the person designated
as a contact for questions on this item,
but that person's voicemail box has not been set up.
It was impossible to reach her.
Thank you.
They're freezing me down here at Cindy Hall
and to call my doctor, because this is ridiculous.
Y'all think it's funny.
I'm serious.
I'm anemic.
This is ridiculous.
So I don't understand this part about bad debt of $3.3 million
will not be reimbursed by the RPTIF.
So are we saying that we're going
to be losing $3.3 million in some way with the inability
to get it back or whatever?
I'm not understanding it.
I read it.
Sometimes these reports are not clear enough for the everyday
person to understand what you are saying.
And then the race equity statement
in this particular report, a racial equity analysis
has not been conducted.
Are you saying that it was supposed to be conducted
and you didn't do it?
Or you voluntarily didn't do it because it wasn't required?
I don't understand that.
A race equity analysis was not conducted.
For what reason was it not conducted?
And somebody needs to say that.
And then race equity is an issue at parks and public facilities
and streetscape.
So I know, without the answer being given to me,
that a race equity analysis should have been conducted.
Thank you for your comments.
And that concludes your public speakers for item six.
is there a motion.
I will make the motion.
What do we need to do with this to,
full council need to hear this?
Yeah.
So I would send it to full council on consent
for the 16th.
And second.
We have a motion made by council member Unger,
seconded by council member Brown
to approve the recommendations of staff
and afford this item to December 16th city council agenda
on consent on roll council member Brown.
aye council member Unger, aye council member Wong, aye and chair Ramachandran, aye this
motion passes with four ayes to approve the recommendations of staff and
before this item to the December 16th city council agenda and that is on
consent moving to item seven adopt a resolution authorizing a professional
service agreement with Francisco and associates for engineering services for
various local measures of the city of Oakland Oakland landscaping and lighting
assessment district for a three year term effective January 1st 26th through December
31st 28th with an option to extend two additional years without returning to council for a total
contract amount not to exceed $550,000 and waiving the local small local business enterprise
requirements and you do have one speaker for this item.
Thank you.
Please go ahead.
Good morning, council members and members of the public.
with the chair in Jose Segura, principal budget
and management analyst in the finance department.
Today I'm presenting a resolution requesting
authorization to enter into a contract
with Francisco and Associates Inc.
to provide ongoing professional services,
I'm sorry, ongoing professional engineering services
for management of the city's special assessment
and parcel tax districts.
The current contract for these services expires
at the end of 2025.
Tasks include parcel identification,
land use and rate determination, annual role preparation for the county assessor, and support
for inquiries related to the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District, also known
as the LAD, and various voter-approved measures.
Furthermore, state legislation requires that a certified engineer prepare the LAD's engineer
report.
The contract also includes a grand total of $50,000 for as-needed or ad hoc analysis,
such as evaluation of potential new measures.
The annual fee of approximately 100,000 aligns
with recent budgets with an impact of $11,000 per fund
on average.
The various assessments in fiscal year 2025-26
are expected to generate approximately 196 million.
So the annual fee represents approximately 0.05%
of the corresponding revenues.
We also do the review, support essential services,
revenues from the assessments of the work
being done by the engineer, support essential services,
including emergency dispatch, paramedics,
children's services, libraries, support police,
fire, recreation, homelessness services,
water quality and litter reduction, amongst others.
The selection was made through an RFP process.
The RFP was issued in September 2025
for city procurement requirements.
The RRFP was advertised in the Oakland Tribune, Oakland Post, and El Mundo.
Notices were also sent to all vendors with a relevant industry classification who registered in the city centralized vendor database.
And availability analysis by the Department of Workplace and
Employment Standards found no certified local slash small local firms able to perform the required services.
And therefore they set the local small local business enterprise requirements at 0%.
Because the local small local business enterprise requirements were set at 0% we were advised
by the office of the city attorney that there is no need to request a waiver of the local
small local business enterprise.
Therefore we are proposing to strike out the last portion of the title which reads as follows
quote
and waving the local small local business enterprise requirements
as well as the second resolved clause
which reads as follows
further resolved
that the city council hereby waves the local small
the l slash s l b e requirements for this contract
And so staff recommends that the city council
adopt a resolution authorizing the professional services
agreement with Francisco and Associates Inc.
For engineering services for various local measures
in the city of Oakland Landscaping
and Lighting Assessment District.
For a three year term effective January 1, 2026
through December 31, 2028,
with an option to extend for two additional years
without returning to council for a total contract amount
not to exceed $550,000.
Thank you.
Colleagues, any questions or comments?
Councilor Wong.
Hi, yes, what is the relationship with the county assessor in this process?
Why couldn't they be doing this type of work?
I'll defer to the finance director.
Thank you.
The chair to Council Member Wong.
The county assessor is responsible for ensuring that the assessment role is created in every
county.
All local jurisdictions are required to submit their own assessments, their own partial taxes
to the role for levy.
this is not assessor work. It's not it's not assessor work here or any other
county in the state. That's why there's a state code that requires an engineer
being included in the submission. This is standard practice for every municipality.
It's not assessor's work. Okay, as long as we're not taking on things that the
county could be doing, I'll motion to adopt staff's recommendation. Second. Okay,
Do we have any public speakers moving to our public speakers miss Asada
When the public has concerns they don't have to do that for them to step
To help us understand what's going on. I don't know the young lady's name, but thank you. I
think that
we have to be extremely concerned when we
Have a document that says without returning to counsel if you looked at if you heard the list of areas
that this money or this
Item is going to be covering
particularly homelessness
Homeless services, I wanted anything that comes up with homeless services. I wanted me to be brought in front of this body
you're not taking enough initiative to
prioritize homelessness from my perspective and then
The last thing I want to mention is this is a landscaping and lighting component.
And I don't know if the lighting issue covers the fact, I go up Keller,
and at night the lighting is not available, the lighting is there,
but the trees have surrounded the lights.
So you really don't have access to the lighting of the street of the street on Keller
So does this cover the maintenance component where you have to eliminate?
Blockage of lighting is that a component of lighting services or does that even exist?
Shake your head. Please. Let me know
They don't have to know just shake your head. Yes or no
Potentially.
Okay, thank you, sir.
That concludes our public speakers for item seven.
We do have a motion made by Councilmember Wong,
seconded by Councilmember Brown,
to approve as amended the recommendations of staff,
and this will be forwarded to the December 16th
City Council Agenda, and that is on consent.
With the amendments as follows,
striking the last portion of the title,
of the legislation title, which states waving
the small local business enterprise requirements,
Excuse me.
And striking the second further resolve clause
that states further resolve
that the city council hereby waves
the L slash SLBE requirements for this contract.
On the roll, council member Brown.
Aye.
Thank you, sorry about that.
Council member Unger.
Aye.
Council member Wong.
Aye.
And chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
This motion passes with four ayes to approve as amended
the recommendations of staff
and the four decide on to December 16th.
City council agenda on consent
with the amendments that stated earlier.
Please note that item eight,
regarding the information report on ratings
for GO BON Series 2025 was withdrawn from this agenda
and rescheduled to the January 27, 2026
Finance and Management Committee agenda.
Moving to open forum.
When I call your name, please approach the podium.
We only have two speakers, Mrs. Sada
and Kevin Dali.
From Transport Oakland.
I have great respect for a new finance director,
Bradley Johnson, but I don't think he should be the one
establishing parking policy for the city of Oakland.
There's a move from the city administrator
to move parking policy from transportation to finance.
Deborah Edgley, 20 years ago, parking was under the city administrator.
Same time, this book, High Cost of Pre-Parking, was published, and that has changed parking
policy.
We have it in transportation now.
For a reason, our people are well-informed about parking policy.
We can optimize parking occupancy, turnover, and merchant visits.
council established department of transportation we should only change it
through the city council thank you as I said earlier I'm very much concerned
about the seven hundred thousand dollars that has been allocated for the World
Cup and there's there's a document says that the city of Alameda will fund a
$120,000. And the support for the project will come from Alameda, the city of
Alameda, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda County, and the state of California. But we're
providing a whole $700,000. I'm concerned that I just read something that says
that you're hiring a Democracy Dollar program manager, and the minimum salary
would be $149,409.72.
This hire is not a priority.
You do not have a director for the department,
I'm sorry, the department head for Human Services,
and it is time for you to realize that one person
cannot have oversight of the Oakland Public Works
and Transportation Department.
You need someone, the person who's over transportation
can stay in that position.
Thank you for your comment, Mrs. Nada.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Thank you, ma'am.
You're welcome.
That concludes your public speakers for open forum.
Thanks, everyone.
Meetings adjourned.
See you next year.