Good morning and welcome to the finance and management committee meeting of
Tuesday March 24th 2025 or sorry 2026. The time is now 9 31 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 would like to submit a speaker card please fill one out and turn one
into myself or a clerk representative no later than 10 minutes after the start of
this meeting. This meeting came to order at 9 31 a.m. and this and speaker cards
when a longer be accepted after 9.41 a.m.
We'll now proceed with taking roll.
Council members Brown?
Unger?
Here.
Wong?
Present.
And Chair Ramachandran?
Present.
Thank you, we have four members present.
Before we begin Chair,
do you have any announcements at this time?
Yes, we are changing the order of the items
that will be heard.
we will be starting with item number seven,
the Q2 report.
Moving to item four, the citywide staffing report.
Then item five, the informational report
on the salary survey for job classes under 25 an hour.
Then item three, which is amendment to the salary ordinance.
And then finally, item six, which is six,
which is the PFERS portfolio.
And I believe there is a change to item three
and I will pass it to staff to explain it.
Thank you Chair Ahmetran and Brad Johnson, Director of Finance.
For item three, we will be removing
the listed item one of parking administrator
and delaying that to a future discussion
of the civil service and salary ordinance,
so staff expect during that item
to pull that particular element of it,
but wanting to continue to move forward
with the policing administrator,
the assistant director of human services positions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So just to reiterate, we will be hearing
the other two salary classifications,
not that part one that's listed here.
Of course, folks can still make public comment if they choose,
but that's not gonna be voted on today.
And that's all.
Okay, thank you.
Just noting the changes made to the order of the agenda
to hear items seven, four, five, three, and then six.
Now proceeding with item number one,
approval of the draft minutes from the committee meeting
held on March 10th, 2026.
And there are no speakers on this item.
We'll entertain a motion of approval.
Second.
Thank you, we have a motion made by Councilmember Brown,
seconded by Councilmember Unger,
To accept the draft minutes from the committee meeting
held on March 10, 2026.
On roll, council members Brown.
Aye.
Unger.
Aye.
Wong.
And Chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
Thank you, item number four passes with four ayes
to accept the draft minutes from March 10, 2026.
Reading in item two,
determination of scheduled outstanding committee items
and we have no speakers on this item.
Thank you, is there anything from staff?
Okay.
Councilmember Brown?
I will move the item.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have a motion made by Chair Ramachandran, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to accept
the determination of scheduled outstanding committee items as is.
On roll, Councilmembers Brown?
Aye.
Unger?
Aye.
Wong?
Aye.
And Chair Ramachandran?
Aye.
Thank you.
Item number two passes with four ayes to accept the determination of scheduled outstanding
committee items.
item number seven receive an informational report on fiscal year 2025
to 26 second quarter revenues and expeditures results and year-end
estimates for the general purpose fund and select funds and we have two
speakers that signed up to speak thank you in k-top we do have a presentation
we'll get it started a staff could come to podium please so I'll give you guys
a little bit of background on this report. This is our second quarter revenue and expenditure
report. As you are all aware, the city provides quarterly revenue and expenditure reports
throughout the course of the fiscal year to provide updates on our revenues and expenditures.
If you can click over to report background, please Jose. The context of this report is
in alignment with our consolidated fiscal policy and will inform you on the status of
our general purpose fund along with some other significant funds over and we do
this over the course of the year. The upshot of this report is the general
purpose fund's budget is holding steady. While we're a little bit under on
revenues and expenditures the budget is in alignment within 1% of what we
expected. Our expectation is that we will be able to end this fiscal year in
roughly the same financial position we started with which if I can recall you
all back to the Q4 report after a lot of movement last fiscal year we did end up
a positive position over the end of the Q4.
And so I believe we will be able to maintain that position
with plus or minus 1% through the end of this fiscal year.
I'm gonna hand it over to Jose Segura
to go over our revenue results.
Thank you Director Johnson.
Through the chair, my name is Jose Segura,
principal budget and management analyst
in the revenue bureau.
Through the second quarter of fiscal year 2025-26,
we project that general purpose fund revenues
will come in below the adjusted budget
by about $59.9 million or 7.1%.
However, that comparison includes a planned use
of fund balance to cover prior year carry-forwards.
If we set aside those one-time uses of fund balance
and focus only on the actual revenues,
the shortfall is projected at just under 1% below budget.
The shortfall is concentrated in a few major categories,
which are property tax, sales tax,
and utility consumption tax.
These are three of the city's largest revenue sources,
so even small percentage changes can have a noticeable impact on the overall budget.
This slide completes the GPF revenue by category table, with the overall total shown here.
Excluding the anticipated one-time use of fund balance, revenues are projected to end
the year about 7.4 million or 0.94 percent below budget.
And I'll go into each of the key drivers in more detail, starting with property tax.
The tax revenue has been projected at 312.3 million about 10 million or 3.1% below budget.
Historically property tax revenue has grown around 6% annually over the past 20 years.
Coming into this fiscal year the city had already anticipated that property tax growth
was low compared to recent trends.
The five year financial forecast in the budget assumed growth of about 3% for fiscal year
2526 assuming proportionally fewer property sales and corresponding reassessments.
However, actual growth came in significantly lower than expected with assessed taxable values increasing by less than one percent this year in the city
This was largely due to Prop 8 reductions, which temporarily allow for lower assessed values when the market conditions decline
commercial properties were affected the most
Utility consumption tax revenue is projected at seventy point three million, which is about five point four million or seven point one percent below budget
continued growth in utility rates through this fiscal year,
rates have instead stabilized at a relatively high level
following several years of increases.
Over the past decade, the revenue grew significantly,
largely because of the utility rates,
especially electricity rates, have been rising quickly.
This year, however, rates have started to stabilize.
According to the California Public Utility Commission
2025 Q4 report, the sharp increases in utility rates
The sharp increases in utility rates we saw in prior years have leveled off.
As a result, revenue growth has also slowed.
In fact, year-to-day collections for utility consumption tax is slightly below last year's
level through the Q2.
And the year-end estimate now aligns with last year's totals.
Sales tax revenue is projected at 81.2 million, which is about 3 million or 3.6 below budget.
This includes an estimated 21.8 million in Measure A revenue, which took effect in October
of 2025 and will be in effect for three-quarters of this fiscal year.
The most recent detailed data available through Q1 shows that different sales tax categories
were on average about four per and five percent lower than at the same time last year in terms
of gross receipts with the biggest declines projected in general consumer goods and fuel
and service stations.
And I will now hand it off to the budget team who will present the expenditures.
Mario Mariano, budget management analyst. For general purpose expenditures, they are
currently projected to end the year $4.91 million over the adjusted budget. And over
these next two slides, that number will be broken down by department. A majority of departments
are projected to end FY26 under budget, with most of them having spent 50% or less of their
adjusted budget through the second quarter, as shown on the right side of the slide. HR
at the bottom and a handful of other departments,
as you can see on the next slide,
are projected to overspend, unfortunately.
Now, the primary reason for this projected overspending
is due to the adjustment related to one-time bonuses
that were paid out to employees earlier this year,
along with additional possible carry-forwards.
Now, however, without these adjustments,
all departments in the general purpose fund
would have projected to come in under budget.
So if we're strictly looking at them on an operational basis,
The departments are still under spending with their budget.
I'll pass it back to Director Johnson
and finish off the rest of the presentation.
Absolutely.
I want to highlight before Daniel moves off of that slide
that your two largest departments
and the General Purpose Fund Police and Fire
are both projected to be under budget.
That's not something we traditionally see.
So I want to call that out.
That's not a small feat of achievement.
And as Daniel mentioned,
the key driver of overspending is the fact
that we did issue one-time bonuses entirely
out of the General Purpose Fund,
and we did not budget those departments
to have bonuses from the General Purpose Fund.
So you'll see in some departments like Public Works
or Human Resources,
which are mostly not General Purpose Fund funded,
they have this bonus expense, but no budget for it.
They're coming out of the General Purpose Fund
and out of their budget,
but we have the resources to cover that
from last year's fund balance.
So that's kind of an artifact of this presentation,
as Daniel mentioned.
Aside from that, everyone would be under budget.
Moving on to our fund balance,
and this is the takeaway slide.
If you guys can recall back to last fiscal year,
we ended just above, just below $17 million
to the positive in your General Purpose Fund.
We're expecting to close out this year
roughly 20 to the positive,
roughly a $3 million bettering.
It's halfway through the fiscal year.
$3 million on $900 million is a very, very small margin.
It's less than half a percent of that margin.
So effectively, your biggest takeaway
on your General Purpose Fund is we are
exactly where we thought we would be.
Your budget is holding Pat.
Again, you're a little low on your departmental expenditures,
a little low on revenues, both are coming in,
but that's lining out and ending you
about three million dollars to the positive.
We are maintaining compliance with our reserve policies.
As you know, we ended last year
with an intact emergency reserve.
We remain intact for that.
We do not have any money in our rainy day fund,
but we didn't have any last year.
That has not changed, and we're in compliance
with our own reserve policy as well.
You have some other key funds that are notable here.
We have some positive projected balances
across a number of fund sets,
and we'll be addressing them as we come
into our budget cycle and we'll find our projections.
This affordable housing number is probably
the one mostly of concern to us.
I do think that we will cure this
over the course of a couple of years
as we continue to generate revenue in the source,
so I'm not super overly concerned,
but I do want to point this out to you
in terms of its balances.
And again, we're projected to be positive
in your internal service funds.
Moving forward, the city does continue
to face some key pressures.
I want to know that we have continued increases
in our CalPERS and healthcare and insurance costs.
Federal government remains a source of uncertainty for us,
both in terms of what they fund directly
and the actions they take
and how those affect the economy.
We have to consider that we need to move into compliance
with restoring our ballot measure in MOEs.
We have negative funds.
We have a ballot measure on this June's ballot,
and we have significant deferred costs
for equipment, facilities, and technology.
We have opportunities from last year
to continue to build on revenue collection performance.
One of the things that was not underperforming this year
was your business tax, and we continue to do well
in terms of trying to drive in that resource.
We need to continue to focus on other resources
within the General Purpose Fund,
where we can continue to drive revenue improvement.
We had a positive beginning position.
We did have a successful access to bond market,
and we have been pretty good
at maintaining spending discipline,
as shown by, if you remove out that sort of contribution
of the one-time bonuses, every department
in the General Purpose Fund coming in under budget.
With that, I will pause and note again these key takeaways,
but take any questions that you might have.
Thank you, Director Johnson and the entire finance team.
I think this is a great indication
that we're on our way to continue to be on stable footing,
less half a percentage point plus or minus
under general purpose fund seems very good news.
And a big thanks to our revenue division in particular
for working very hard to collect
previously uncollected business taxes
and to try to get as much revenues as possible.
And I have just two questions.
One about what are the realities
that's kind of outside the city of Oakland's control,
which is primarily property taxes.
Are other cities experiencing this as well in the region?
Yes, absolutely.
So what Jose mentioned in terms of Prop 8 reductions
is a factor that you're seeing throughout Alameda County
and the Bay Area in general.
As we all know, the office market has been one of the places
where it's been harder hit come pandemic.
Under California law, a taxpayer has the ability,
if they feel like they're paying above market value,
to ask the assessor, who's an elected official,
to reassess their property tax down.
The assessor does key work and makes that determination
based on what they see the market at.
Whenever possible, we do try to provide input
whenever we can to mitigate that
if it's gonna be an impact to the city.
But that is something we're seeing across the county
and across our region.
So it is not an Oakland-specific factor.
We do have the biggest downtown in Alameda County.
So in terms of commercial properties,
we tend to be affected a little bit more
compared to our other compatriot cities in the county.
But you would see a similar factor happening
in San Francisco and in Santa Clara County with San Jose.
That's not an unusual trend.
The nice thing about Prop 8 reassessments is,
should the market take off again?
Instead of growing 2% per year
to get back to where they were,
the assessor can reset them all in one go
to that prior value.
So should the market come back,
we can, this can be a faster increase
back to where we were, too.
So it falls faster based on the market,
but it can come back faster.
So we're continuing to watch and monitor for that.
Thank you, I think that's great news.
And can you differentiate again
how we're doing on the residential assessments
versus commercial?
It's clear that commercial property values
are down in the region,
but how are we doing on the residential property?
Your residential market continues to be,
I wouldn't say great guns strong, but robust, stable.
We continue to get our 2% growth rates
out of our normal residential properties.
Your property market is fairly stable.
The only thing that I would be concerned about
on the residential market side is,
and it's less to do with your property tax,
more to do with your RETT, right?
Interest rates remain fairly high compared
to our recent trends.
That high interest rate does discourage a lot of people
from getting into the market.
And so, when we have a better market going,
you get more property turnover,
which means you get more reassessments to market rate value,
which tends to drive your property tax number
a little bit higher than it would normally.
But what you're seeing right now is a healthy continuing
real estate market on the residential sector side.
And hopefully as we get some development projects built,
we'll continue to see growth in that space.
Great, and just one more question.
Clarifying that the estimate at the end of that fiscal year
we're anticipating to have a surplus of 20 million,
is that?
That's right.
So your bank account at the end of last year,
if you think the difference between your paycheck,
your expense bills and what's in your bank account.
What you're seeing is your bank account growing
from just under $17 million to just over $20 million.
That's what we're projecting.
So, that's again a very, very small marginal increase
on your general purpose fund.
That's $800 million, right?
But marginal increase is good to go.
That's what we wanna see, less than half a percent.
Again, meaning that based on all the things
we're seeing right now, we are trending almost exactly
where we were given we're half a year
into the fiscal year.
So this is very positive.
There are lots of things that are unexpected
and could happen.
I should note when we did this report,
at the time we were doing this data,
we were not in a war in the Middle East.
That wasn't true at that time.
There are things that can occur.
But in terms of our internal management
of both our revenues and expenditures
were exactly where we thought we would be.
Great, thank you.
Council Member Wong.
Hi, thank you.
Through the chair.
Sorry, can you just explain,
because I'm seeing in table one
a lot of numbers in the red
and where the year-end estimate is 784 million
for revenues and 849 for expenditures.
How is it that we're not ending the year in the deficit?
I just-
Absolutely.
So a key unbudgeted expense
are the one-time bonuses for civilian employees.
So while we agreed to that in the labor agreements,
we did not budget for that, it came after your budget.
those expenses come entirely out
of your general purpose fund,
regardless of where the department is funded normally.
So you'll find a department that has no general purpose fund
with potentially a general purpose fund expense,
if that makes sense.
And so they could actually be over budget in some space,
but that we all planned to cover that expenditure
out of the unrealized resources at the end of,
or the excess resources from the Kaiser sale,
Kaiser building sale from last year.
So we have those resources in there, again, unbudgeted.
We have the expense, unbudgeted,
which is why I wanna call you to that fund balance table
at the end, which shows that slight increase.
We're doing a little bit.
We're getting very, very marginal improvement on last year.
If you do a budget to actuals comparison though,
which is the standard way of you doing this report,
you'll find these unbudgeted expenditures coming up.
But again, the performance of our departments
as if we had not had that bonus is such
that everyone would be under budget
and that under budgeting compared to our slightly lower revenue connection would actually be
a slight positive number, slight improvement about $3 million.
Gotcha.
So, these were unbudgeted, but we would see in the actuals, essentially.
Exactly.
Okay.
Unbudgeted, but anticipated.
We anticipated this.
This is not different than our trend.
We expected this, but it is not formally budgeted.
Right.
budget actual comparison to your formally adopted and adjusted budgets
okay okay gotcha and I was just curious there were a couple of expenditures that
were over budget they were then non-department and port as well as the
Human Services Department what was driving those sure yeah so on the non
apartmental port side that's primarily again some of our sort of resources that
were that are driven from the last fiscal coming forward along with non
Non-departmental receives the recoveries from expenditures and other funds related to federal
grants.
We are not doing, as you might imagine, we have some contentious issues with the federal
government regarding our grant expenditures.
One of the things that gets recovered for non-departmental is actually the administrative
side of those grants.
And so you see that as actually an offset in your non-departmental space, and if we're
not getting those offsets, because we're not getting some of those grants in or we have
issues in terms of the draws on them, it's going to show as a problem expenditure space.
We're working to rectify that, and again, I don't expect it to be a problem at the end
of the fiscal year.
Okay.
And the Human Services Department?
That's primarily – Human Services is mostly non-general purpose fund funded, has a lot
of staff.
You're – the vast majority of – if you look at – I'm going to pick a program
set, for example.
If I look at our Homelessness Services Unit within Human Services, a lot of that is in
measure Q, a lot of that is in measure W, your vacancy tax, some of it is in federal
and state grants like HAP and CBBG and HOPWA and whatnot.
And so what you're seeing is those sources are not actually paying for the one-time bonuses
the general purpose fund is, and the human services department was again not delivered
a general purpose fund budget for those, but we are charging them out of there because
that's actually where the resource sat at the end of last fiscal year per what
we saw. So you'll see that a better example on that again if you look at
human resources or planning and building the fact that those are over budget
planning and building is almost not almost entirely not in the general
purpose fund but again has an expenditure now and so that's what
you're seeing in terms of that dynamic. Okay gotcha helpful. Thank you. Before I
move to Councilmember Brown just one other positive I'd like to highlight and
ask about is for the first time I feel like since I've been on council OPD
seems to be under budget. What is this a result of? It's absolutely so I
want to commend former Chief Mitchell and current Chief Bier for their active
work in aggressively managing the overtime to deploy it primarily I would
say exclusively when necessary. I will note that they are doing a very very
very active job of trying to manage that,
both on the PD and I should mention
on the fire side as well.
I do have to caveat, we have both PD and fire
could be required to respond to a major event
and we haven't had a really significant major event
this fiscal year yet.
So should something come up potentially due
to the federal level, potentially due to something else
that occurs, this might be a trend that changes.
But again, sort of good news on no major events thus far.
But again, we're at war in the Middle East.
It's really, really warm outside right now,
which while lovely for our weather
is not super good for our fire season, things could occur.
We have to continue to monitor that.
But in sort of normal spaces,
both chiefs are doing a very, very active job
of managing their overtime budget
and maintaining expenses within it.
I will say some credit is also due to this body
for ensuring that the budgets that were adopted
for PD and fire are reasonable
and are something that actually sort of aligns
with the resource spending pool
that they're gonna have out through the year.
We do have from many, many years ago an audit finding
saying that one of the things that council needs to do
is provide a reasonable budget for police and fire
that they actually can live within.
And that is something that we adopted
in our biennial budget of last year.
So it's both good management, good budgeting practice
and hopefully it's something that we can continue
through the end of this fiscal year.
Thank you, Council Member Brown.
Excellent, thank you so much.
through the chair to our finance director.
Thank you to you and the team
for such a comprehensive report.
My question has to do with slide number 14.
It's my understanding that from the last time
we had this report presented to us,
it appears that fund 1870,
the negative balance continues to grow.
And I know you spoke very quickly about this item,
but I wanted to ask more specifically,
what is the plan to bring this fund
into a positive balance?
And I guess I'm also curious,
I guess, what is contributing to the negative fund balance?
And then also, is this also a fund that actually,
the dollars come from the general fund?
I was trying to recall the exact methodology
of like how we fund this.
And then I guess my last question is,
is there staff that are paid out of this fund?
I will answer all of those questions.
I'll take the middle one first.
So the origin of the resource for 1870.
1870 is a city's, is a city fund that is set up
from 25% of the former redevelopment money
that came back to all taxing entities following the dissolution of redevelopment.
So when we dissolve the redevelopment agencies, when the state did that back in January of 2012,
resources were given back to the taxing entities of which the city was won.
The city is elected to put 25% of that resource aside in an affordable housing trust fund.
The city also originally used this as the fund for
receiving its affordable housing and jobs housing impact fees.
That was the original source that was happening here.
And over the course of the last sort of three years there are two major developments.
One the council as an policy to balance last year's budget adopted a policy by which we
could divert resources out of that on a temporary basis because it is general fund money to
help balance the general purpose fund.
And so that did drive your negative going into last year and so we brought it down so
it came in a little bit under in terms of fund balance last year and that's the majority
of what we're continuing to see this year.
And a second practice that we moved is we created designated funds for 1871 and 1872
for your affordable housing and jobs housing impact fees.
And so we did a reconciliation by which we removed the fund balance attributed to those
two and moved them to their own separate funding sources.
And so the upside of all that is this fund ended up a little bit negative.
The other two funds are actually positive.
And so net together they're all positive.
This fund is, so this is an active practice where we have to manage this.
The biggest thing you'll see here
is our expected unit expenditure projections
are almost $34 million compared to a revenue number
of about 14.
This is mostly carry forward expenditure
for existing projects.
So actually most of what you spend out on this
is pre-existing projects.
This $34 million may not actually all be spent this year
because it takes a while to actually do these projects
on a cash basis.
We actually have a balance in this fund, it's positive.
But if we spent everything we're authorized to spend,
we were able to complete every single one
of those projects this year, we would go negatives.
And so that's what we're saying
with this negative five million.
If you look at that 14 as you're beginning to balance,
there's actually a positive balance and to start it.
That's the dynamic.
So I don't actually expect to project,
to spend everything out of this fund in the current year,
but for conservatives' sake, we do forecast it that way.
And we can resolve this, sort of what we would call
the negative appropriation balance
with careful budgeting over the course of the mid-cycle.
One action you could take is you could reduce
any reliance the general purpose fund has
and move back to the 25% allocation.
The other thing that we're likely to see
is we do have vacancies in this fund.
This does form a lot of our affordable housing staff.
And so we're gonna see some natural resolution
of this with vacancy savings.
The other thing we'll be working with housing to do
is see if any of the projects that are funded out of 1870
or more properly move to 1871 or 1872
where we have positive balances.
We can shift where the project funding source is
if it's eligible for affordable housing
and job impact fees and sort of equalize across the funds
to make sure that they're all on a positive position.
So again, I don't think this is a major concern
in the long run.
It's not cash negative to start
and it probably will not be cash negative
at the end of this year
and we're actively trying to manage it.
Any other comments?
Okay, we can move to public comment.
Actually, I'm sorry, I have one more question.
And that's the positive balance on measure Q.
So the estimated positive balance, about 14 million.
Is this primarily due to hiring
and not being able to hire for budgeted positions?
That's absolutely.
It's primarily driven by salary savings
from both the prior year
and in forecasting the current fiscal year.
That's exactly what you're saying.
Okay, thank you.
public comment. Calling in the names that signed up to speak on item number seven
David Vote Right and Kevin Dalley. David Vote Right district four I have a lot of
confidence in our finance director he is so knowledgeable it's unbelievable but
there's something in this report that really confused me and it was on page
eight first paragraph on that page and it says that because of the underages on
on revenues and the overages on expenses.
Approximately 64.84 million operating deficit will occur.
I know y'all don't answer questions,
but it's in your report,
so it oughta be something that somebody can address.
Thank you.
All right, Kevin Dalley, also from District 4.
Want to call out one part
that I think is interesting, Attachment A, Page 8.
The parking fines and penalties have come in 6.1 above budget, so they are collecting
more fines and penalties than what's budgeted, and this is with the current parking and mobility
team as it's set up at present.
There'll be increased enforcement in April, expanding to Sunday enforcement, and that's
also noted in this attachment, so I think we'll see more increases, and I'm looking
forward to more parking enforcement, including Sundays.
I also want to thank, again, the bond sales
have been wonderful.
Street paving has done a fantastic job.
It meant my ride into city council today.
One small, one more small street is nice and smooth
and no longer bumpy.
And I'm looking forward to more being done.
Thanks, thanks for the bond sales.
Thank you for your comments.
that includes all speakers on this item. Thank you. Is there any comments from the finance department?
I will just clarify for the record that we are expecting to end slightly better in the general
purpose fund at the end of this fiscal year than we ended last year and that should be the key
takeaway from everyone on this body. Thank you. Is there a motion to receive and file this report?
So moved second
Thank you
We have a motion made by councilmember Brown seconded by councilmember Wong
To receive and file this informational report in committee on roll council members Brown. I younger I
Sorry Wong I and chair Ramachandran. Thank you item number seven passes with four eyes to receive and file this informational report in committee
Now reading in item number four
Receive an informational report on citywide staffing from the city administrator regarding citywide vacancy rates and status of as
of February 1st
2026 budgeted vacancy rates for fiscal year
2025 26 the vacancy rates for regional local public entities
recruitment outreach and community engagement and
The the analysis of the city workforce and recruitment conditions and we have three speakers that signed up
Hello everyone my name is Elaine Reyes I'm a supervising personnel operations analyst
in the recruitment classification operations division of the human resources management
department.
I'm here today to present an overview of the citywide staffing report as of February 1st
2026.
Just to give you a little background over the past several years HRM has prepared a
report assessing vacancy data for city positions analyzing several key staffing factors including
recruitment improvements, retention trends, and employee tenure.
Today's presentation will highlight key data points and observations from the report and
will also include information as set forth by Assembly Bill 2561, which is the California
State Law requiring agencies to publicly report on job vacancies, recruitment, and retention
efforts annually.
Before reviewing the data, I want to clarify how vacancies were defined for the purposes
of this report.
For this report, vacancies are defined as non-encumbered and unfrozen. Non-encumbered
positions are available to be filled and are not being held vacant for any other purpose.
Encumbered positions, on the other hand, are tied to funding for overtime, temporary staffing,
under-filled positions, or acting assignments. Frozen positions are roles that exist in the
budget but are not currently available to be filled. Positions may be frozen due to
budget constraints, strategic or operational realignments, or pending decisions about
the future of the role. Because these positions are not available for recruitment or hiring,
they are generally excluded from the vacancy counts. As of February 1st, 2026, the city
had 4,264.17 full-time equivalent positions. This includes full-time and permanent part-time
positions with some positions funded at less than one FTE. Of those positions, 839.75
positions were vacant, which calculates to 19.69% as our vacancy rate. Something to note
about the positions that were included here, we did identify a few that don't fit the general
description that we normally include. We identified some positions that were authorized and frozen,
as well as some filled unauthorized and unfrozen positions.
There were also a couple of encumbered positions
that were authorized but frozen.
We included these exceptions to provide
a more accurate snapshot of the city's staffing levels.
Now with that context, let's take a look
at how this compares to historical data.
This chart here shows the historical vacancy rate
since 2020.
Overall, the vacancy rate increased significantly
after 2021 and have remained consistently high since then,
generally hovering between 18 and 20%.
This suggests the city has been operating
with a structurally higher vacancy level
for the last several years.
For your reference, last year HRM reported a vacancy rate
of 17.94%, although vacancy levels have increased,
the city's authorized positions have also gone up.
The vacancy information was analyzed in several ways,
one of which was by department.
This chart here highlights the top five departments
at the highest vacancy rate percentages.
Looking at percentages helps to show
the relative staffing impact within each department.
As shown here, you can see that
to us has the highest vacancy rate at 55%,
followed by HRM with 45,
Police Commission at 39%, and DVP at 37.
Public ethics also made the top five,
however, if you take a look at the data,
it looks like they only have four vacant positions
out of their relatively small total FTE of 12,
which results in a higher percentage of 33%.
And for that reason we should also look at the data
by the total number of vacant positions.
And we look at this data this way,
the total number of vacancies shows
where the largest staffing gaps exist across the city.
The departments with the highest number of vacancies
were fire, department of transportation,
police, public works, and human services.
Next we can take a look at how the data
was broken out by union.
This shows the vacancy rate broken down
by each of the six unions that the city has
a memoranda of understanding with,
otherwise known as an MOU.
You can see here that Local 21 holds the highest percentage
at 24.62.
Local 21 also has the highest number
with about 350 vacancies.
Now within each MOU for each union,
there are multiple bargaining units.
And this table here shows the top nine bargaining units
with the highest vacancy percentages.
These were identified as being subject to additional reporting as required by Assembly Bill 2561 because 20% or more of their positions in their bargaining unit are unfilled.
The Assembly Bill requires agencies to provide detailed information such as number of vacancies, which you saw in the previous slide, the number of applicants for those vacancies, the average number of days it takes to complete the hiring process from when it's posted and opportunities for improvement.
We looked at data collected five years back,
so from February 1st to 2021 through February 1st, 2026,
with the bargaining units identified
that had at least one active vacancy.
This table shows the number of applications received
and the time to hire,
which considers the total average number of days
from the hiring process took,
breaking it down into two stages.
Posting, sorry, job posting to eligible list
and then referral to hire.
Only recruitments with complete data for both stages
were included to ensure accurate time to hire reporting.
As mentioned, the hiring timeline
was measured in two stages.
HRM is responsible for activities during stage one,
from when an announcement is open
to when an eligible list is established,
whereas hiring departments are responsible for activities
during stage two, from when a candidate is referred
up until a hire is made.
Here's a visual representation of the data
from the previous slide broken down into the stages.
For classifications represented by Local 21,
The departmental hiring phase averaged four weeks longer
than HRM's recruitment phase.
For classifications represented by SEIU,
the timelines for both stages were nearly identical.
HRM has implemented several strategies
to reduce time to hire, such as improved coordination
with departments to streamline hiring processes,
including creating an operations team
to enhance departmental support.
We're also looking at strengthening recruitment planning
and leveraging digital tools
to reduce administrative delays.
Now, we're going to take a look at each vacancy status.
On February 4, 2026, HRM reviewed the vacancy status of all 851 positions.
Each vacant position was categorized into a status as shown here, including how it compares
to last year's report.
Some notable observations, of the total vacancies, 426 do not have a requisition submitted by
the department, a department.
This represents 50% of all vacancies compared to 59% last year.
Without a requisition, no action can be taken to fill these positions.
Additionally, of these 426 vacancies, 116 or 14% of the total vacancies have an eligible
list available.
This means HRM previously established an eligible list with qualified candidates available to
be interviewed.
However, the department has not yet submitted a requisition to begin their hiring process.
Throughout this process HRM also identified a few instances where eligible lists were
not utilized before expiration.
To support proactive workforce planning, we implemented distributing a monthly report
to departments to encourage timely use or extension of active eligible lists.
23% of vacancies are currently in progress to be filled.
Departments are in either the interview process or have identified a candidate.
This is an increase from 19% last year.
HRM is currently assigned to work to fill 20%
of the total vacancies.
5% are pending HR analyst assignment.
That's a jump from 10 to 40.
We're also actively working on 11% of the vacancies
compared to 6% last year.
That's an increase from 49 vacancies to 92 vacancies.
And in addition, compared to last year,
there's been a significant increase in vacancies
resulting from class specification and title changes.
That number nearly tripled from last year, from 11 to 40.
Since the last staffing report in 2025,
we've strengthened our classification and recruitment
capacity through training and expanded responsibilities
amongst the team.
Another way we sliced the data was to look at sworn
versus non-sworn positions.
As compared to last year's report,
non-sworn decreased from 23.5 to 22.11%,
whereas there was a large increase in sworn
from 5.15 to 13.55%.
Looking at separations for the past 10 years,
FY24-25 total separations increased by 45.6%.
And then looking at that you may think
there should be more of a pressure on recruitment
and the need to outpace separations with hiring.
However, if you look at the reasons for the separations,
there was a 55.8% in retirements.
Retirements are more predictable than resignations
and can result in the loss of institutional knowledge,
technical expertise, and supervisory capacity.
This increases the need for supporting internal advancement
and enhancing workplace engagement,
with the hope that it will result in long-term retention.
Police recorded the highest number of separations,
representing 30% of the city's total separations.
Fire followed at 13% with public works,
close behind with 12%.
When looking at this data,
police employees are leaving well
before retirement eligibility,
suggesting retention and engagement challenges.
Police may benefit from targeted retention efforts.
In contrast, fire and public work separations
were largely retirement based and more predictable.
These departments would benefit from succession planning
and knowledge transfer initiatives.
Employee tenure has been slowly increasing
with a 0.9% increase from 2023, I'm sorry,
23 to 24 to 2425.
So far we've seen an increase of 14.5 for this fiscal year.
As far as data collected
from our regional comparator jurisdictions.
This information has been collected since May of 2022.
The city is most in line with Hayward and Richmond
in terms of our vacancy rate.
In summary, HRM is committed
to not only strengthening hiring, but also retention.
We're looking to continue to partner with departments
to streamline hiring processes and reduce time to fill
and support departments in attracting and retaining talent
while adapting to evolving workforce needs.
In partnership with the Department of Race and Equity,
we are embedding equitable practices
in recruitment and employment.
And additionally, I do want to point out
that recruitment classification is not alone in this effort.
Our HRM's organizational development and training division
also shares a strong commitment to strengthening retention
through employee development, career growth,
and support for supervisors and managers,
and also equipping leaders with the tools and skills
to foster engagement and a high-performing workforce.
That's all I have for today, any questions?
Thank you, I appreciate the presentation
and some of the slightly positive numbers
that you made in comparison to last year.
But to be frank, I think that it's shameful
that we have 840 vacancies,
but when someone goes to the City of Oakland job websites,
as of this morning, there's 40.
And of those 40, only 20 are full-time positions.
A year ago, after this annual report came out,
talked to residents about this and the number one person this is the way that
the city is perceived with the public that we are not trying to hire that
departments or HR have their own reasons why they don't want to hire or they only
hire their friends this is the very real perception of how we are treated I
appreciate that there's some minor improvements but these numbers are the
worst in four years. And other cities, we cannot keep talking about the pandemic has
hindered progress because other cities have caught up. It's understandable in 2020 and 2021,
even 2022 if our numbers were down, but it is 2026. And we have a 20% vacancy rate for key
public service delivery roles, back in 2023, June, my first budget cycle, we had found
money and passed the addition of two tree services workers, essential positions to keep
our communities free from trees falling on the ground, fire safety, a whole bunch of
other things.
It's 2026 and they're not higher.
There are so many positions, front line service delivery positions, street sweepers, sign
leaders, engineers, things that affect everyday public life that qualified Oakland residents
want to have as jobs.
And they're not even on the website.
So I know that there's some modest increases being made, but how can the HR department
have 35 vacancies if we're trying to increase the speed of getting these things out there?
And there's only so much you can blame departments.
I know that there's some numbers of requisitions that haven't been submitted, but what about
all the ones that have been submitted?
I think this is, frankly, disgraceful, and I don't even have concrete questions because
this was shocking to me to see the numbers increase from last year, that it's been the
highest since the pandemic, and I don't know what to do, but the public of those Oakland
residents who want to work for the city see us as an ivory tower that doesn't want to
to give jobs to Oakland residents.
And I think that perception can only be changed
when there's proactive hiring,
proactive outreach to the community,
telling Oakland residents the city has 800 jobs available
to you and you should apply.
Colleagues, Council Member Wong.
Hi, I completely agree with the chair.
Just to start off on a good note,
I will say this report is very thorough.
So thank you for putting it together.
But I think it just really, it's concerning.
And I think the thing that really sticks out to me is,
what is going on with the HR department itself?
Because the vacancy rate is really shocking.
And it seems like filling that HR department
would ensure benefits across the city
to fill all these vacancies.
And it was noteworthy that for many of the vacancies
that there was no requisition.
And so that's a department issue.
But for HR, I assume that you all need
to fill your own requisition.
So why hasn't that been done?
I don't see on the website any posting for the HR analysts
that are needed to fill so many of these other positions.
And so that is just one that I,
I read that and I'm just deeply concerned.
Through the chair, Amber Lytle, Human Resources Manager.
So a couple points I want to address.
First, with the vacancies within HRM,
those were added in January of this year.
We did just close the senior analyst posting two weeks ago,
the assistant analyst posting last week.
So we are in the process of filling those positions,
but some of those positions are newly added to the budget,
so we haven't had the opportunity to fill them.
We are actively working on it,
but that contributes to our vacancy rate
and the additional positions that were added this year.
Regarding our postings,
one announcement can cover multiple jobs.
So just because you only see 20 at a time,
that could fill 60, 80 jobs.
So it is a little bit deceptive
when you look at it that way.
It doesn't indicate how many jobs per posting.
How long does it take once a position has been budgeted
to get it up on the website?
It all depends on the department's participation,
but once they've submitted a requisition,
Our time to hire is less than three months.
We've significantly decreased that time frame.
And one of the things that Elaine had pointed out,
the HRM's time versus the department time,
the department time should be down to about 60 days.
And they are far exceeding our timeline.
So that's where we really need to partner
with our department to submit those requisitions.
And then once they get those names to act upon that.
Okay, what about the HR analyst position?
Since that's one that you don't need to,
There is no dependency on the department.
That's just an HR thing.
How long has that taken to post after it was budgeted for?
So when they were added in January,
the postings went live in February.
Part of the process though,
we do have to get budget approval.
So even though they are added into our budget,
we still have to submit the requisition
and it goes through a level of approval.
So it starts at the department head,
then it goes to budget to approve,
and then it goes to equal access.
So there's a few steps along the way.
not just submit a requisition it's approved the next day and some of them
budget takes a little bit of time to make sure yes it's in the budget but can
we actually fill it so that contributes to the timeline as well. Okay thank you.
Councilman Branker. Did you want to answer that question first? I'm sorry did you
want to answer that question before you have more to add? Well I just have some
actually a different comment to make, but you go ahead.
Council member?
If you're still on, go ahead.
Good morning, Mary Howe, HR Director.
I think I just want to make sure that we are focusing
on the right number of members
of the Finance Management Committee.
So I think that we had a similar situation last year
where we reported a very stark, high number of vacancies,
because that's an actual count of positions
that exist within the city.
But I think what we did this year in the report
was to highlight for you that 51% of those positions,
or 431 of them actually have no activity.
We are not able to act on that
because they're either no requisition
or they're on hold by the department for various reasons.
We have 197 that are in active recruitment process,
but because they still are not encumbered,
they report as a vacancy.
So they're in somewhere during the interview process
or backgrounds or other hiring processes.
And so the last four items in the chart
that Ms. Reyes showed you totals roughly 25%
of those 851 classifications, I mean, excuse me, positions
that require some sort of action.
So I think I just want to make sure
that the members of this committee are focusing
on the right sort of breakdown of the statistics
rather than the big number.
Because that big number exists
because they are not encumbered,
But there but half of them there is no activity and we're not able to act without a requisition. Thank you
Thank you all for being here and I understand how difficult this is, you know
I've worked for the city for almost 30 years and HR and hiring has been the choke point in the bottleneck and and the
Department with the most difficulty for as I remember and so I think that you know, we're all trying to be
as
Gentle as possible with with everyone, you know
I saw a lot in the report blaming some of the delays on the departments and that may be the case. I think we need to
get a lot better at really calling out where the choke points are and let's cut through the
The niceties and I would hope that in future reports
You really highlight where those bottlenecks are because I still can't entirely tell where the bottlenecks are if it's the departments
then let's figure out how to make the departments better.
If it's HR, if it's budget, if it's finance.
Like, I still can't tell where the bottlenecks are
and that is what I've been trying to cut through for years.
I mean, could you rank the three bottlenecks for me
or the top three?
I think if I had to, off the top of my head,
I think it really falls when the names are referred
to the department, how long it takes the department to fill.
So, I can give you an example.
There was a position that was available.
The department requested to use acting pay
to fill the position, an exempt position,
and why don't you just fill it?
You have the names.
Well, it's gonna take us like three weeks
before we can assemble an interview panel.
We told you in advance where we're working on this process,
we told you we're gonna establish the eligible list,
why aren't you ready?
So what we've done within HRM
is we've created a departmental personnel support team,
and the team is really focused
on how can we enhance these processes for the department
and how can we better support the department.
So we can do the blame game, but we really need to step back
and say what resources can we provide to the departments
so that we can help them fill these positions.
I'd like to see when we come back
in future reports how that's working, like specifically,
like we need to stop sort of lamenting the fact
that it's a problem and actually getting at the nub of it.
One specific thing I noticed is that I think
over the period you assessed, which was five years,
there were 87 instances where people died on an active list.
And so my understanding is that is a time when we had an open position,
we had a person on a list who was qualified and ready to take the job, and
that list expired before we could fill it.
Why have we had 87 lists die?
The department didn't submit requisitions.
So it could be, there's multiple instances, but
let's say that one department has a vacancy, they submit the requisition, and
we create the eligible list, but a different department also has a position that same classification.
If they don't submit the requisition, they're not going to use the eligible list. So one
department might initiate the list available, but the other departments aren't submitting
the requisitions to utilize them. You also have to remember we have restricted lists
and open lists, so that's a combination of the effect too. We might have only used the
restricted and never touched the open, different instances.
This seems to me like the lowest hanging fruit. These are situations where we have somebody
who wants the job. We have the job that's open. Let's put those two together and make
a beautiful marriage. And we do have our principal analysts, they meet with our departments either
monthly or biweekly depending on the size of the department and their needs. But we
go through and say here's your PC report, here's your available positions, when are
you going to submit the requisition, please submit the requisition. So we do actively
work with the departments but we can't submit it on their behalf. They have to prioritize
what they wanna hire for and submit those requisitions
so we can support them.
What do you all need to make this better?
Because I think you can sense from everyone
on this committee that this is something
we're all really concerned about.
What do you need to fix this problem?
The department heads need to authorize
the submission of the requisitions
and then the departmental SPOCs would submit those
so that we can start that recruitment process.
Do you feel like the department heads
know what they need to do?
Not necessarily.
I don't know if all of the department heads
are communicating with their single points of contact regularly.
To the city administrator, how can we help the department heads get to understand
what they need to do through the chair to council member Unger?
I think one of the things that we're talking about here,
there is a lot of emphasis placed on the human resources department,
and I think they've owned the areas in which they've needed to improve.
Um, the other reality is your human resources department has also taken onus
and responsibility of making sure that they're centralizing the spot duties to
make sure that there is some centralization in how we process a lot of this information.
With that being said, we also have to factor in the fact that your department heads are
also having to manage to a budget until they're trying to strategically hire within a timeframe
to make sure they're staying within the budget.
I'm not going to be one that will speak out both sides of my mouth to elevate how well
we're doing fiscally.
On the flip side, we're aggressively pushing hiring because that's our highest cost.
We got to have an honest conversation here about what are we doing with respect to how
and when we hire and prioritize that hiring, but your human resources department is doing
a very good job as quickly as possible to centralize a lot of duties.
I think we all can attest to the fact that there have been some issues.
Even how we move forward administratively in my office, this body, and trying to make
sure we're cleaning a lot of that up.
With that being said, though, to answer your question more directly, I will actually take
some time and spend that time with your director how to make sure we articulate what that process
is and make it clear, because we do have quite a few new directors as well that may not be
fully aware how the process works or that they're trying to figure this thing out, and
some folks may be, you know, director Lester, he's new to this thing and he probably didn't
realize there was a list that was available with respect to certain positions that he may
want to hire, but may not be fully aware of that.
So I think it's really important for us to have this honest conversation, and I think
some of the questions that you all have asked are very spot on and very fair questions,
and we certainly want to make sure we bring that information back.
But I also want to acknowledge the reality that your human resources department is doing
a lot of work to address a lot of the issues, and some of those new positions that Ms. Lidle
mentioned now feeding into the human resources department to move these processes along a
a lot faster than we have, it's gonna bear a lot of fruit.
But I just appreciate the fact that they realize
this is a choke point of an issue,
but we're happy to bring something back to you all
so that you all are fully aware
on how the improvements are working.
And if it's not working, we'll pivot, adjust,
and make the requisite changes that we need to.
Thank you for that.
And I appreciate how hard you all are working,
and I apologize for my frustration.
I think that every email I get from a constituent
or from somebody in the city,
I could send the same answer, which is we can't do that
because we don't have the staff.
And I could, from everything, from policing
to potholes to anything, that could be my response.
And we are just trying to figure out how to crack this nut.
So thank you for working with us on that.
Thank you.
Before moving to Councilmember Brown,
I just don't think it's fair to blame department heads.
Because in the past, back early 2024,
I did a deep dive on some of these non-sworn positions
in other civilian roles.
And when you changed your policies
on asking departments for a list of top five positions
to rank order where you can submit many,
departments didn't know.
The SPOCs didn't know.
I was engaging with these people.
And there is miscommunication.
So it's not just departments not sending you
the requirements one way.
It's also communication back the other,
which seems to be broken.
and I would love to see changes when it comes to that.
But also, yes, there are, for various reasons,
miscommunication, two sides not talking to each other
in the same city, there's 400 requisitions not submitted,
what about the other 400?
There's so much that can be due outside of that,
so I do hope to see that as well.
And thank you, Chair Ramachandra, for your comments.
And so of the 851, 431 have no activities.
But 197 are in some active recruitment process, including interviews and backgrounds.
And so that leaves us a net of 223 that we are focusing our efforts on.
And I believe that for the past couple of times we've been here, we've addressed your concerns about the top five.
That no longer exists.
I don't know where the top five came from.
My staff and I've been here two years.
My staff has said that they understand through the folklore, the oral tradition, that once upon a time maybe there was some mutterings of the top five.
now we actually sit down, we meet regularly
with our departments and we ask them,
just give us your list and rank order
of what your priorities are.
If you need employees to fill pot holes, tell us.
What is it that you need?
We do not limit them to anything.
So I do wanna dispel that myth.
I don't know, I do wanna respectfully dispel that myth
because that does not exist.
Well we have different versions of the truth,
which is fine, we're not going to debate that right here,
but it is very clear in conversation that I have had
with department heads, with staff, with SPOCs,
but that was certainly not the case two years ago.
But we can move on.
Thank you, and so yes, I think as the department
actually does the work, I think that we respectfully disagree
with that myth, but yes, let's move on.
All right, Council Member Brown.
Well thank you so much to my colleagues
and the HR department for this comprehensive report.
I'm personally focused, I recognize everyone
is extremely frustrated and I think in this moment
I'm really focused in on how we can innovate as a city
and how technology comes into play here
in this conversation, even if we don't focus
on the amount of open positions that have not received
the requisition and even if we focus on the ones
that have, I am curious, the report states on page 18,
there's a category under technology and process.
And I guess I am curious with the,
I guess with the vacant positions that HR has,
is there a specific position that is focused in
on actually meeting Oaklanders like where they are?
And this is outside of kind of what was listed
in the report where it states all of the various
community engagement activities
that the departments went to, job fairs, et cetera,
but also recognizing that a lot of people
look for jobs online.
And so if, for example, all the job classifications
aren't listed on the website,
and I think occasionally I'll see on the city of Oakland,
maybe like the LinkedIn, sometimes on social media,
I'll see one-offs where it's like,
oh, we're hiring for a director position
or something like that.
But I guess I'm more interested in what is our actual,
I think I would love in this report
to see something that's like,
hey, what is our social media plan?
Because there are so many ways that community members,
and especially folks who are kind of up and coming,
maybe just graduating from college,
there's different ways that we should be engaging with them,
and it may not necessarily be at a random career fair
that you may see the day of and honestly you can't make it.
And so I guess I'm interested in like what,
one, have we hired someone in a role
that actually manages hiring
in the HR department for technology?
Like do we have that?
Not specifically, no.
And so I guess like through the chair to the administration
maybe potentially that could be something
that we consider for the future
so that we can just really put a plan in place
to make sure that we are engaging with Oaklanders
so that there isn't this perception
that we aren't trying, right?
I know that the second that I posted an open position
within my office, it received 54 shares within 30 minutes,
like it was very quick and so I imagine
that that same type of engagement,
we would get that same type of engagement
even if we break it down where it's like,
Oakland Fire Department hiring the following positions.
Maybe that's what we're posting about week one, week two,
HR, so on and so forth.
And so I think that there are some tools at our disposal
to actually help get the word out and actually
do some maybe more innovative recruitment
to help support departments in filling these positions.
And then we can further eliminate this misconception
that we aren't hiring.
So I would love to have someone speak to that.
Yeah, so we can absolutely work to partner with PIOs
to get things out a little bit better.
But I do want to say our numbers of applicants
are not hurting.
We get lots of people that are applying to the jobs.
It's after the process.
Where does somebody want to ultimately work?
But we do get high numbers.
So we are advertising as the jobs come available.
We've implemented a few different things.
So one of the things I'm happy to report,
we actually have two of our staff members.
They're at a career fair right now.
We have, we've been doing various events.
One of our senior analysts, Terry Stanley,
did a great presentation last week at the library.
I think we had 300 people attend,
where he talked about how to apply for a job.
Where are the pitfalls that we're seeing
in the application process?
So, you know, people aren't filling out
their application correctly and they're falling off.
How can we help the public?
So we are actively working on recruiting for our jobs.
We've also implemented a few different things
that help us internally.
So we've got new software in our applicant tracking system.
So additional modules that will help us to hire faster.
So we just implemented that.
We're going through an implementation process
with NeoGovert government jobs is what the public sees.
And so that is supposed to be fully implemented
and ready to go by June 5th.
So our team is working on that.
So we have a lot of things that are happening
in the back end.
We are a very small team,
and so we are trying to not only fill our own positions,
but to help fill positions citywide.
Absolutely, and that makes sense,
and I hope that the open positions that you all have in HR,
those would be a priority to fill,
and then also at the same time,
I know that a lot of times the community feedback
that we receive is that it takes so long
to actually get hired with the city,
and so I hope that, I guess, to the administration,
supporting the department that we could help
to really like set a very strong goal of like,
you know, by the time someone applies
to the time we actually fill the position,
like what is that timeframe
that we are actually striving for?
So that, you know, if there was 30 applicants
that applied for that one position,
then those 29 who don't get the job
can move on to maybe something else that's posted as well
so that we are in general losing all 29, right?
And then potentially that would help to fill
some of the vacancies.
And through the chair, we have several council members
that are actually working to fill their own positions.
So I've been able to work with several of you one-on-one.
And I think you've seen some of the processes.
Once somebody's selected and onboarding,
there's still the payroll paperwork
that has to be filled out.
There's still the I-9 process and the person has to come in.
So there's those other pieces that once it transfers
from the department, back to HR, back to payroll.
So there's those things that we're working very closely
with the payroll manager to make sure
that we're helping to streamline those processes
so we can get people onboarded as quickly as possible.
And just a comment.
You're absolutely right, Amber.
It's been a delight working really closely
with both you and Anjali with onboarding,
and so I'm really grateful for your support.
Thank you.
Hands under one.
Thank you.
And I did want to second my colleague's comments
using social media and just I think we have to meet, you know, 20-year-olds and 30-year-olds,
the next generation of public servants, that's where they're at.
I just really want to understand this whole requisition issue because I am, it's a little
jaw-dropping in terms of the vacancies that don't have a requisition submitted.
Can you walk us through exactly what that looks like and why so many department heads
have not submitted it?
Is that something that if we really focus on hiring up more HR analysts that the HR
department could then support department heads in submitting it?
Is it a highly technical or convoluted process?
So yeah.
So I'll start off and I'll hand it to Director Johnson.
Part of those additional positions that were added to our budget were to help with submission
of the requisitions.
One of the key things though is we don't want to just submit requisitions for every position
that there is.
the department has to decide where are their priorities.
If we submit it for the office assistant,
but they really needed to do the street sweeper first,
we wanna make sure that they're prioritizing
where their needs are.
So we don't wanna just submit every requisition
without the department actually letting us know
what are the priorities for their departments.
Especially if you wanna hire the supervisor
before you fill the position that they will be supervising.
You can't hire the incumbents and then have no supervisor.
So it really is a strategic process
on how the requisitions are submitted.
but the actual process of submitting a requisition
is very easy.
It takes a couple of minutes,
but it really is the whole thought process
behind submitting the requisition.
But I'll turn it over to the director Johnson.
Thank you for the...
I'd like to pass it to the administrator, Johnson,
and just a friendly reminder,
we have 45 minutes to finish three items,
one that has significant public comment, thank you.
Thank you through the chair.
The council member Wong,
I know you probably have a couple more questions
that you'll want to ask,
but I want to be mindful of the other items that we have.
If it is helpful, happy to sit down and walk you through
what the process actually is, which is very consistent
amongst municipalities across the country.
So happy to make and carve out that time.
But I just want to be cognizant of the other items
that we have coming up, which are pretty heavy.
Yeah, that's fair.
I'll just finish with this comment, which is like,
there are positions like EWD's code enforcement position
that have been highlighted as a priority,
discussed it with the department head.
They agree it's a top priority.
other departments even say this position is needed and then I look on the website
and it's still not listed and so this is the kind of stuff that
I just really need
feel like we need to dig into
that's it
thank you
public speakers
calling in the names that sign up to speak on item number four in no particular
order you can come up to the podium
set earlier david boat right in kevin dally
David Boatwright, District 4, after this bloodbath
that y'all have carried on here,
I think it's obvious that there's been a lack
of communication both by the council, human resources,
and all the departments.
There's no reason why there should be
so many unrequisitioned positions.
Now my comments.
Unexplained in this report shows four frozen positions
that were filled and 69 unauthorized positions
that were filled.
Except in departments where there is a clear need
for hiring, for example, OPD, 9-11, street repairs,
street paving, safety-related infrastructure,
and where significant revenue generation
has been proven, departments where significant
non-general purpose fund bond spending is available,
and jobs where future experience laws can be predicted due to retirements and replacement
hiring is difficult. The city should not be budgeting for new positions that do not meet
these criteria. We still have a budget problem. Why are we hiring 800 people if we've got
a budget problem? Positions where solid factual results driven reasons cannot be proven. Our
jobs this city cannot afford to fill. Pure statistics should not be the only
justification for hiring. I'm not going to finish the rest of this but basically
we ought to look back at what happened since 2019 when we started hiring like
crazy through the pandemic and this city has grown in size so much we need to
to look at what happened then and reconsider those jobs.
Just too many.
Seth Bullier, President of Oakland Firefighters.
I just want to say thank you for the report.
That's incredibly informative and for the entire Council's
work to try and staff up Oakland.
Just speaking for the OFD and Oakland Firefighters
perspective, staffing levels for my membership
is approaching an all-time low.
Council Member Unger can attest to this.
There were some times where we were down in the high 300s,
We're approaching 400 members at this point.
And as far as we're aware, we're the only department
that has a minimum staffing agreement that guarantees
that there must be this many fire engines and trucks
on the city every day with this many people.
So we have a set number of seats that we
have to fill contractually every day that
is set in order to guarantee safety levels for Oaklanders
and for Oakland firefighters.
That's 141 per day.
There are three shifts.
That's 423 butts that need to be in seats every day.
and we're under 420 members total right now,
we're at 418 is my recollection.
So that doesn't account for any day off,
any sick days, any vacation, anything,
my membership is at the breaking point.
And we're at the point now where people are having
to choose between their families and their oath,
and they're going through divorces,
they're going through and contemplating suicide,
we are in extremis.
The time is now, actually the time has passed
to do something, so I'm calling on this board
and this body to do something please
to help my membership in Oakland.
We need to do a lateral firefighter class,
we need to do a lateral firefighter paramedic class
immediately, a 17% vacancy rate is just abysmal
and it's unsafe and Oaklanders deserve better.
You know, the last thing I wanna say is just
What I'm hearing from HR is that they're ready to work
and they need requisitions, they're ready to hire.
So let's do it.
We're at 418 people, plus or minus,
and we're authorized for 500.
I'd love 2026 to be the year that we hit that number.
Thank you.
Kevin Dalley, I've also heard when I attend
the Bicyclists and Pedestrian Advisory Commissions,
often OAT Doc mentions problems with hiring.
And I think from various departments
I've heard versions of the top five rule.
If you give HR too many positions to fill at once,
some of the important positions will be dropped.
I'm hoping the city administrator can work
with all of the departments who are having trouble hiring
and with HR and figure out how we can move forward
and improve hiring.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
the public hearing.
Thank you.
I'm sure that concludes all
speakers on this item.
Thank you.
I will entertain a motion to
forward this to the April 14th
City Council meeting as a public
hearing.
Move approval.
Second.
Thank you.
We have a motion made by
Councilmember Brown, seconded by
Councilmember Wong, to approve
the recommendations of staff and
to receive and forward this
item to the April 14th Special
a public hearing.
On roll council members brown.
I hunger I belong I and- chair
ramachandran I thank you item
number four passes with four
eyes to be forwarded to the
April fourteenth special city
council agenda at three thirty
PM as a public hearing.
Reading in item five receiving
information report on the
results of the salary survey.
For these four city job
classifications earning less
that signed up to speak.
Thank you.
In the interest of time, myself and co-author, Councilmember
Brown, would like to postpone this item
to be heard at the next Finance Committee
meeting on April 21st, but we are open to taking public comment,
and we'll have to vote on it being postponed as well.
Calling in the name that signed up
to speak on item number five, Kevin Dalley,
who has just left the chamber.
Mr. Dalley, would you still like to speak on item?
OK.
Chair, that concludes all names.
Thank you.
I will make a motion to postpone this to the next FMC committee
on April 21.
Second.
Thank you.
That was a motion made by Chair Ramachandran, seconded
I want to thank you for coming
by councilmember Wong to.
Continue this item to the
April twenty first finance and
management committee agenda on
roll council members brown I
hunger I walk I and share
Ramachandran I thank you item
number five passes with.
For eyes to be forwarded to the
April twenty first finance and
management committee agenda.
Reading in item number three.
was withdrawn. Adopt the following pieces of legislation, a resolution
recommending to the Civil Service Board the exemption of the classification of
parking administrator from the operation of civil service, noting that one was
withdrawn, and two, a resolution recommending to the Civil Service Board
the exemption of the classification of constitutional policing administrator
for the operation of civil service and three,
a resolution recommending to the civil service board
the exemption of the classification
of assistant director human services
for the operation of civil service and four,
an ordinance amending the salary schedule
of ordinance number 12187 CMS, sorry,
to A, at the full-time classification
of parking administrator and B,
the full-time classification
of constitutional policing administrator
and C at the full-time classification
of Assistant Director Human Services
and D, amends the salary of the full-time classification
of Neighborhood Law Corps Attorney.
And we have a number of speakers on this item.
Monica Davis, Deputy City Administrator.
I did wanna clarify the administration's request
on amending the full component of this agenda item.
So for item three, withdrawing part one
as the clerk mentioned, but also in part four,
updating the title of the ordinance to strike part A
that says, add the full-time classification
of parking administrator, and then the body of the ordinance
to remove section two.
The following classification is added in ordinance
number 12187CMS in the unit UK 275026 pay grade table
to read as follows classification title,
class number, step salary, parking administration details,
and then also updating the related attachment A
to remove the parking administrator on page 118.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Colleagues, any questions?
Council member Unger.
Just so I'm clear, that removes all of the
references to parking.
Yes, I probably should have said that up front.
Yes, we're removing the parking administrator component
of this agenda item.
Thank you.
Okay, we can move to public comment.
Oh, sorry, Council member Unger.
I did have just one very quick thing.
I just want to highlight the salary increase
for the neighborhood law court attorneys here.
I think that this is an incredibly skilled group
of folks who are working at a level sort of way
below of the money that they can make in the private sector.
And I just appreciate their work and say
this is well-deserved.
Fully agreed on the neighborhood law court position.
Very well-deserved increase.
Calling this.
OK, public comment.
Calling in the names that signed up
to speak on item number three in no particular order.
You can come back to the podium.
State your name for the record.
If you are ceding time to anyone,
please be sure to be here in chamber
to acknowledge that you are ceding time to that person.
Kevin Dalley, Keith Schulhurst,
Benica C. Ross, Michael Ford.
I see people who have ceded time to you.
Douglas Mount and Tammy Byrd.
Kirby Olson, I see people have ceded time to you.
Phillip Sweet, Ben Matloff,
Lakisha Montalvo,
Chernell Smith,
Sarah Fine,
Colin Peath,
and
LaMonica Lee.
Please state your name for the record
before beginning your comment.
Good morning, Sarah Fine.
I have time ceded to me by Colin Peathy and Lemie Chene.
Thank you.
We will have an adjusted time of four minutes.
You can begin.
Okay, Sarah Fine, Department of Transportation
and Local 21 Member.
I'm here to present a letter on behalf
of nearly 1,000 members citywide,
vehemently opposing the creation
of the parking administrator classification,
opposing the transition of a protected civil service
position to at-will employment,
opposing the finance department's takeover
of the parking division,
and denouncing the administration's misuse
of general purpose funds to facilitate the takeover.
Despite historically low parking staffing levels
due to budget cuts and delays in hiring,
the city has seen increased parking revenues.
Just as we are concerned about how revenues are collected,
we pay attention to how they're spent.
We oppose the creation of this position
because it wastes taxpayer money.
The parking administrator would up-level
the existing manager, but have less staff
reporting to them, fewer responsibilities,
and would do less work.
Why is the administration suddenly excited
to give someone less work for more pay?
How will the administration pay for this person who does less work for more pay?
With the General Purpose Fund, of course, the same GPF that was 12 months ago so
strapped for cash, that this administration felt it necessary to send layoff notices to
more than 60 union members.
The same GPF that was so tapped out, every city worker except swarm police was told
there was not enough for a guaranteed cost of living increase this year.
We accepted maybe money in our contracts for
this administration to turn around and throw GPF at a brand new corner office.
This is waste and we oppose it.
And speaking of corner offices,
the staff report fails to mention that this report,
this role would be among the 30 highest paid positions
in the entire city of Oakland.
Whoever's selected for this role
will make more than the Assistant Director of Planning
and Building, the Assistant Director of Oak Dot,
the Assistant Director of Public Works,
but also the Director of Public Ethics Commission
and the Director of Race and Equity.
If our budget is a statement of values,
this statement clearly says we got it all wrong.
Finally, we stand for protecting civil service
because it is a bulwark against cronyism and nepotism,
against corruption and compromise ethics
from the federal government to local government.
Civil service means you must be hired
through a competitive merit-based,
qualifications-based system.
It means you cannot be fired
because you refuse to do someone's bidding.
And it means you don't get the corner office
just because your friend has the other one.
We oppose the administration's proposal
to replace an existing civil service protected role
with a new role exempt from civil service
and at greater cost and so should you.
Join us in rejecting the administration's meritless proposal
to add a wasteful exempt executive position
to our top heavy tree.
Hi, I'm Keith Sherreholtz, I'm with Oak Dot.
I've worked for the city for 26 years this year
for the last eight years with Oak Dot.
I'm basically coming to reiterate a very simple,
simple question.
Why are you paying more money for less work?
More money for less work.
That makes no sense.
And after listening to the reports today
and having my jaw hit the floor many times,
I'm starting to see a pattern of nuttiness here.
Please, please say no to the insanity
and start the process back to responsibility.
Also want to point out that if you're concerned
about revenue, please come and talk to the staff
about increasing revenue and ideas for that.
We have plenty of ideas.
All of the people here who work for Oak Dot
have ideas about increasing revenue,
and I would love to sit down with city council staff
and go over ideas that we have,
and we've batted around for years
to increase finance and revenue.
Thank you so much.
Morning, for the record, Kirby Olson.
I have two people ceding their time to me.
They are, their names are Phillip Sweet and Ben Matlow.
So for the record, my name is Kirby Olson.
So, that's why I'm here today speaking as a local 21
union member and concerned Oakland resident.
Thank you to the administration for removing the parking
administrator from today's item, but I just want to generally
speak against that position and urge the committee members
to reject the creation of the parking administrator position
whenever it comes back to you.
Creation of the parking administrator position
would all but ensure that the finance department's hostile
in this budget.
But I think the public working division will happen.
That proposal was presented to the Public Works and
Transportation Committee twice, where both times it faced deep
skepticism from committee members and an overwhelming
display of opposition from staff, the local 21, and SEIU
unions, business improvement districts, transportation
advocates, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission.
The reorganization proposal has not been vetted by the full
council and is not currently scheduled to be vetted.
colleagues on the full council it is immature and irresponsible to approve the
creation of this new position. We know that as soon as this position is created
finance will use ad deletes and other financial trickery to fill it. Council
members the city administrator has told you that he has full authority to
execute the reorg and you are helpless to stop it and yet what he hasn't told
you is that you have in your power the ability to reject the creation of this
position which is in fact the linchpin of the entire reorganization. He also
I also didn't tell you that creation of this new position will cost $550,000 fully loaded per year from the general fund.
And be completely redundant to the award winning parking division manager that you are already employing at the DOT and
who will continue to be employed regardless of the reorg.
The stated rationale for this reorganization is that finance can better handle collections and citation payment plans.
Collections account for less than one and a half percent of total parking revenues.
The finance has not stated what they would do to improve them.
By their own admission, they have not identified any new revenues from the reorg nor any salary savings.
The rationale is so flimsy and so baseless that we have no choice.
But to assume that the real reason for the entire proposal is so
that they can hand this very well paying appointed position to one of their friends.
That level of nepotism is sadly not surprising given the track record of the people pushing this proposal.
we need to do better as a city this isn't 2008 and we don't need to go back
to those dark days. We already have an award-winning division manager and
Michael Ford who can lead the parking division once again as soon as the
administration drops this terrible proposal. Committee members I ask you not
to sit back and let this corruption unfold. Assert the authority that the
people of this great city have given you. Show us that you are not a rubber stamp
for this administration. Reject this redundant and costly position until such
time as the full council has heard the parking shy org and given an opinion one way or the
other thank you good morning Michael Ford and I have two people seating me to me Doug
mount and Tammy bird so thank you again Michael Ford local 21 member resident of district
two and for for 10 years I had the honor of leading the city's parking and mobility division
within the Department of Transportation.
And I'd like to just share a little bit about,
just get personal for a minute,
and reflect on what it's been like since October 3rd,
when I was told on my birthday
that the city was taking away my division,
and that I was instructed not to question it.
And I wanna thank Councilmembers Unger and Brown
for bringing the resolution or the request
of the city administration to bring an information report
to the Public Works and Transportation Committee.
It's been very, very important.
I am so proud of the employees
in the Department of Transportation,
Parking and Mobility Division from SEIU and Local 21
who have stuck together.
We've cried together.
We've organized together.
We've come into this chamber multiple times
to express our concern about this parking takeover.
And I feel that the actions today
by the city administration to withdraw this item
gives us more room.
As we've repeatedly said, we're not being confrontational.
We're trying to be constructive.
We just want the best thing for the city of Oakland,
which also means the best thing for our staff.
In 2016, members in this room went to the council and asked to be part of the new Department
of Transportation.
Parking enforcement asked to be re-orged from the police department to the new Department
of Transportation.
Now they're asking to stay in the Department of Transportation.
You've heard several times that this parking re-org would involve the creation of a new
parking administration position the administration has also said repeatedly
that the customer service center or parking and mobility assistance center
deserves a dedicated supervisor I couldn't agree more because I've been
holding that role for three and a half years while it's been frozen so in effect
I have been doing two jobs for three and a half years and I'm not complaining
Um, but this reorg would create two new positions, one of which would be getting 20% more than
me.
That's $45,000 a year more for doing 60% of what I've been doing for the last four or
five years.
That's, that's, I, that's unconscionable.
I just can't, I can't understand why you would do it.
So the last thing I would like to say in its support of the position that you're hearing
from staff, and that is don't fix it if it ain't broken, is that if the city were very
serious about wanting to ensure that we're maximizing revenue, the proposal should be
to staff the front line, not add expensive managers.
So that's my recommendation.
Let's staff our front line, let's keep our capacity to delivering essential services
like automated speed enforcement and the future red light camera programs, and let's get back
to business.
And so I just want to thank you.
Lakeisha Montalvo, and I'm ceding my time to Sharnelle Smith.
I do want to take one minute, and I just want to say thanks for the withdrawal.
Can you please put Michael back in DOT and keep working together?
sorry you get the member of the public if you're sitting time you're not allowed
to use your time anymore sorry thank you my name is Chanel Smith I've been
employed with the city for over 37 years I want to tell thank you all for taking
a moment of pausing this decision and listen to what we have to say what we're
telling you is that we don't need reorg we need restaffing for years for years
We've been understaffed and the parking mobility division. They used to have 14 people there now
They have to we don't need new org. We need re-staffing. We don't need re-org. We need these re-staffing
And meter collections they used to have 10 people now they have to
They don't need re-org they need re-staffing and this is how this happened and parking enforcement
When you're out there with the
park enforcement our stats went
down from fifty park
enforcement officer to about
twenty.
So if I'm not out there
patrolling the streets again
those citizens who won't pay
won't pay so there's no need
for a meter collector to come
by because there's no one paying
the meters.
If I'm not out there issuing
citations there's no one to go
to the PMAC to pay a parking
and we're out there, and like I said before,
this is the city from Embarcadero to Grand Avenue.
There's about 10 sections
where 10 different officers should be out there.
Since the pandemic, it's been like two.
So that's where our breakdown is.
In parking control, we don't need reorg.
We need re-staffing.
In the DOT, we don't need reorg.
We need re-staffing.
And if any of you have taken a moment to look at this,
Where is OPD?
Where is OPD saying that, oh no,
we're gonna welcome this group.
We're gonna encourage this group.
We're gonna do more with this group
than they're doing in DOT.
We have not seen that.
We have not seen them say, come welcome aboard.
What we have seen is DOT, the police department,
lay off officers and send them over to DOT.
This is the strongest unit we have going in the city.
DOT can bring money to the revenue.
We're asking you to not reorg us, restore us,
restore our growth and let us continue
to produce for the city.
Let us continue to produce for the residents of Oakland
because they see us.
They're watching what you do in this process.
We don't need reorg, we just need to be restored
and we need someone like Michael Ford
who's been leading and guiding our group,
not only for the expertise that he brings to our group,
but the boots on the ground that he brings to our group.
Like he said, he's been doing the job in PMac.
He's been doing the job in VEU.
He's hanging signs.
He's not only been the boss, he's been a coworker.
He's encouraging us to do more and to do better
and we're thriving under this leadership.
It's easy to have someone give you directions,
but it's great.
Kevin Dally, I'm also, thanks to the city administrator
for pulling the parking administrator from today's agenda.
I'm looking forward to having the item permanently removed.
I appreciate Council Member Unger and Brown
for sponsoring the informational report
from the City Administrator.
It's come to public works and transportation
over and over again without really getting
a sufficient explanation for why we need to do the reorg.
Before we establish new positions,
Let's decide whether the council is supportive of reorg.
The council does have the right
to specify bureaus and divisions within a department.
This has been done before.
Many years ago, the council decided
to trust the city administrator to follow good faith,
reorganization and allow the city administrator
to organize departments without council requirements.
this. And we're not in the
community. But the council can
come back and require bureaus
and divisions again if need be.
I'm also looking forward. As
Michael Ford said let's get
the parking mobility team back
to. Issuing tickets. Bringing
up the new speed camera program
bringing back red light cameras
and one of my- favorite new
We need to make sure that we
automatically ticket people.
Part in by claims that's a
potential revenue source.
AC transit is probably going to
be willing to go along with
this and it is now legal under
state law Sacramento is already
doing it.
Thanks let let's get rid of
this position thank you.
You guys cross local twenty one
member work in the department
of transportation in the parking
just again want to speak to the fact that the problems that we're facing is
because we're severely understaffed like we have four people right now and the
ability to I'm just impressed with what we've been able to do with our current
staff level if we had more people we wouldn't have the constraints and the
criticisms that have been leveled against us wouldn't be we need more
people and I find it very ironic that the criticisms that have been leveled
against us, when we were part of the revenue department,
the same criticisms were leveled against us.
These are the complaints that have always been historically
discussed about my group, and it really frustrates me
that now all of a sudden, finance is saying,
oh, we have the solution, we can solve everything.
But the problems in my staffing level
started when we were part of the revenue bureau.
The ad deletes, the number of positions that are on my team
shrank, began when we were part of revenue.
And so I don't understand how all of a sudden now,
that can be the solution.
They have the solution to fix our problems.
What we really need is staffing.
That's the fundamental thing we need is staffing.
And under Michael Ford's leadership,
what we have been able to accomplish,
again, with our staffing,
I am very impressed with what my team has done.
And I don't think that this reorg is what we need.
It's equivalent to asking for a heart surgery
we need to we need to.
To remove splinters it's not what
we need.
We need staffing and again under
Michael Ford's leadership we
have done great things and I.
And I believe we will continue
to do great things and we will
continue to innovate.
And continue to push things
forward in a positive manner I
don't think that this regard is
what we need.
What we need is more people.
Thank you thank you for your
Alright, I will entertain a motion to forward this to the next council meeting on consent,
April 14th.
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
We have a motion made by Council Members Unger and Council Member Brown to, sorry, give me
one moment, sorry, to approve the recommendations of staff as amended to forward this to the
April 14th special city council agenda with the following amendments sorry for
item three withdrawing part one in part four updating the title of the ordinance
to strike part a that says at the full-time classification of parking
administrator and in the body of the ordinance to remove section 2 the
following classifications in added in ordinance number 12187 CMS in the unit
Okay. Two seven sorry two seven five zero two six pay grade table to read as follow classifications
title class number step salary parking administration details and updating the related attachment
a to remove the parking administrator on page one eighteen on roll councilmember Brown I
younger I Wong I and chair Ramachandran I thank you item number three passes with four eyes
to forward this item as amended to the
April sorry April 14th special City Council agenda at 3 30 p.m. On consent
Reading in item number six now
receive an informational report on the Oakland's police and fire retirement system investment portfolio as of December 31st
2025 and actual
Valuation report as of July 1st 2025 and we have no speakers that signed up to speak
Good morning and my name is Terry Jenkins and I am the investment operations manager
for the city of Oakland and the police and fire retirement system known as peepers.
We'll keep our presentation short.
Just the purpose of this report is to provide you an update on peepers investments as well
as actuary.
You guys should all have the package that was passed out earlier to assist me in presenting
this information.
I have the Peeper's Investment Consultant,
David Sands, which of Makita Investments,
as well as the Peeper's Actuary, Graham Schmidt of Chyron.
Just a reminder, Peeper's is a closed system.
At that, after 1976, everyone was transferred to CalPERS.
Peeper's currently has a membership
of about 577 individuals, as of December 31.
And we have an investment portfolio of about $500 million
Based on the most recent valuation report,
the plan was fully funded.
And just a quick note that the funds are,
the $500 million is specifically dedicated towards PIFRS
and is funded by a dedicated funding source, the PTO fund.
With that said, I will pass it over to David Sands,
which to discuss a little bit more on the investment.
Thank you.
As usual, I will be short to the point.
You've had a long meeting today
and at least you'll hit another good point here,
which is the portfolio continues to perform well.
As of December 31st, it had over $500 million in assets,
as through the end of February, it was up to 512 million.
The assumed greater return on this portfolio is 5%
for a fiscal year period.
Through the end of February,
that fiscal year return was 10%.
So we've more than doubled
the portfolio's return expectation.
We've also de-risked this portfolio.
about 60% of the assets are in fixed income,
and everything continues to perform
as expected for the most part.
If there are any questions,
I'll turn it over to Graham Schmidt, the actuary.
Thanks, piggybacking on David's good news
from an actual perspective, things are really good.
Plan achieved full funding a year ahead of schedule.
So it's supposed to be funded by June 30th of this year.
If you looked at the market value of assets
as of last year, June 30th, 2025,
the plan had already achieved that full funding target.
No contributions are expected to be required
for the fiscal year that begins July 1st.
So good news report, happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, colleagues, any questions?
Any public speakers?
Okay, we can make a motion to receive in file.
So moved.
Second.
Thank you, we have a motion made by Council Members Brown,
second by Council Member Unger,
to receive and file this informational report
in committee on rule council members Brown?
Aye.
Unger?
Aye.
Wong?
Aye.
And Chair Ramachandran?
Aye.
Thank you, item number six passes with four ayes
to receive and file this information report in committee.
Now moving on to open forum,
calling in the names that signed up to speak,
David Boatwright and Kevin Dalley.
Couple of newspaper articles from,
This one from May 8th, 2019.
San Francisco Chronicle Phil Mater.
Though cranes are rising across the skyline
and Oakland's revenues are growing at a steady rate
due to the strong real estate market,
the city's expenses continue to rise faster than revenues.
Everybody was warned in 2019.
In August of 2020, another article,
the Oakland City Council unanimously agreed July 28th
to form a task force that will work on a plan
to reconstruct public safety in Oakland
with the goal of reducing the police department budget
by 50% over the next two years.
Mission accomplished.
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Brotwright.
Last call for Mr. Dalley.
Chair, all names have been called.
Great, great.
Oh, we don't need to vote.
This meeting's adjourned.
Thank you, everyone.