Good morning and welcome to the finance and management committee meeting of Tuesday, October 13th,
2026. The time is now 9.30 a.m. and this meeting may come to order.
Before taking roll, I will provide instructions on how to submit speaker cards for items on this agenda.
If you're here with us in chamber and would like to submit a speaker card,
please fill one out and turn one into myself or a clerk representative,
no later than 10 minutes after the start of this meeting,
or before the item is read into record, whichever will occur first.
Registering to speak via zoom is now due 24 hours prior to the start of this meeting time
This meeting came to order at 930 a.m. And speaker cards will no longer be accepted 10 minutes after making that time 940 a.m
We'll now proceed with taking roll council members Brown
President Unger here Wang
Excused and chair Ramachandran
Thank you. We have three members present one excused Wong and chair before we begin
again, do you have any announcements at this time?
No announcements, thank you.
Okay, that'll take us to item one,
approval of the draft minutes from the committee meeting
of September 22nd, 2026,
and there are no speakers on this item, just need a motion.
Second.
Thank you, that's a motion made by Council Member Brown,
second by Council Member Unger,
to accept the draft minutes from the committee meeting
of September 22nd, 2026.
On roll, Council Members Brown?
Aye.
Unger?
Wong excused, and Chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
Thank you, item one passes with three ayes
when excused Wong, to accept the draft minutes
from September 22nd, 2026.
Moving on to item two, determination of schedule
of outstanding committee items, and we have two members
that sign up to speak for this item.
Okay, anything from staff?
Nothing, thank you.
Okay, we will go to the public speakers.
Calling in the name that signed up to speak
on item number two, Ms. Asada Olavala.
The ability to consistently ignore issues
that come before you says something about your credibility.
I have repeatedly said, during scheduling of this body,
you have failed to have the annual report
of the city administrator's capacity
to spend up to $250,000.
That's a mandate.
We haven't had a report since 2023 on that mandate.
Your scheduled next report is 2027.
The city administrator approved spending of $12,000 for the Oakland Police Department
to travel to Washington DC using Measure Z funds.
He should have never approved that.
Those funds were for violence prevention and other issues related to policing.
That's just one example of how the city administrator misspent funds and there's a possibility there
could be other areas, but you refuse to demand that a report be put forward immediately.
On that issue, also, you have not scheduled the capacity to look at your designation as
a sanctuary city and how that designation fiscally impacts the city.
There is an impact for being a sanctuary city that is financially negative and you have
not delved into it.
You have little capacity to do with it because you keep no data on individuals who are here
unauthorized
and whether or not they are financially
contributing to the city you have no idea
with any obligations
thank you for your comments
chair that includes all speakers on this item
thank you i do have a question to the administration
do we have a report that comes to this committee about the city administrators
spending that doesn't
All the items that don't come to council within the two hundred fifty thousand limit
Yes, that item is scheduled for October 27th the next committee meeting. Thank you
chair to add to
deputies and see the Ministries Davis that report will cover
2023 24 24 25 and 25 26 so it'll actually cover multiple years. Thank you
So moved
Thank you. We have a motion made by councilmember Brown second by councilmember Unger to accept the determination of schedule outstanding committee items as is
Unrolled council members Brown. Hi Unger long excused and chair Ramachandran
I thank you motion passes with three eyes when excused long to accept the determined the pending list as is
Reading in item three adopted resolution extending the agreement with myth mythics
LLC DBA mythics
eight
LLC to November 30th, 2028 and increasing the agreements from
two hundred forty nine thousand eight hundred fifty dollars to an amount not to exceed one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars
And we have two speakers that sign up to speak on the side of it. Okay
Good morning council members
FZ committee and members of the public. I'm Ashley 16 at payroll mister and department finance the contract recommendation before you
requirements under the city's charter. The recommendation is to adopt a
resolution extending the IT co-op agreement with mythics to November 30,
2028 and increase the agreement from $249,850 to $1,250,000.
And this is very important. It's critical to ensure payroll stability, compliance
with the changing legislation and continued functionality of our system Oracle.
Thank you. Can you can you talk a little bit more about why the amount is
increasing from 250? Yes so originally we had some retirements and a lot of
critical staff that knew the programming of this system who are no longer with us
And so a union agreement came to create a new AWS RDO schedule and we found that currently no one in-house between IT and us was able to program this without breaking the system.
So we did a contract to get a specialized resource because as times are changing, no one knows this version of Oracle anymore.
anymore, so we got a contract to find somebody who is able to do the
programming, and we found it took him six months, and we almost utilized all the
money just to program it without breaking all the other customized codes
that are in Oracle. Okay, great. I have one more question for passing it to my
colleagues. So one of the things that the report notes is FLSA compliance issues,
which we have had issues of overpayment as the auditor's report brought up and
that we've discussed in this committee how will this new contract help prevent
future mishaps of overpayment as an example. So I'm extremely excited the
reason I want to extend the current and leverage the IT co-op is the current
consultant is understanding the coding that is being done so he's as he's
understanding he's fixing it. He's making it more robust. I'm sure 20 years ago when
this was done, that was the best way. But as he's going through it, not only is he fixing
it, but he's making it flowable and readable. There's a lot of programming that it'll say,
hey, do this, but also these other three callbacks somewhere else, which we don't visually see.
And so he's quite strong, 25 years. And he's like, hey, when a patch comes in, this will
break your coding this is why there's breaks.
So he's helping document trained current new staff
that don't know this version.
And so hopefully the hope is to automate
and make the system more robust.
Great, thank you.
Councillor Brown.
Excellent, thank you so much Chair Ramachandran.
You definitely took one of my questions.
And so thank you so much for bringing this item.
I think that the report was very well written,
where it outlines just some of the,
it just outlines some of the details
this program will be able to assist with.
So I definitely like that.
And then I guess maybe the only question that I have
as far as like the programming, like this program,
will it help assist with like overtime calculations?
I hope to, I hope to.
There's, I think the first thing is I wanna get stabilization
and then program all the new changes in the new contracts.
For example, for OPMA,
now they'll be contributing to CalPERS and Medical,
so that means that's a huge change, we don't do it.
But working in other organizations,
you know there's ways to make overtime more automated
and more robust and create rules.
Like, hey, you haven't, you're not eligible,
you haven't worked enough hours.
whereas right now employees can key it in.
And naturally, if you're doing it on a cell phone,
it's easy to pick the wrong code.
So my hope is to eventually program rules in
based on job class, based on what they've worked.
The system is capable of doing this.
Turn on retroactivity so the system can see,
oh, there was a delay for some reason in yoga.
We're getting a late near and late par.
This person's owed this money.
And it should calculate, based on the rule set up,
what's owed. Right now it's done manually which delays more time so eventually yes
that is the hope and that is the reason I'm asking for more money is the first
year I'm hoping is for compliance big beautiful act is required for W-2 all
the MOU changes and then hopefully once that's done we can focus the money on
improving the system. I see and then my last question is I feel like in the past
there's been some issues with like oracle integration and so with this
investment in this particular programming I just wanted to just ask
the question are we foreseeing any issues with the overall integration like
is our Oracle like up to date in order to like be compatible with the system? So
the integration is actually outside Oracle is a robust system like we use
telestaff for fire so it can take other files and import it in for data so
really the would the to get the integration going would be to have a
good project manager and defer to Bradley on the project for that so the
particular to be clear about what this contract is supporting this is mostly
around supporting the current structure of our Oracle system to ensure that it
that doesn't break.
Integrations require us to have, as Anjali mentioned,
cleared, readable files to transfer in
and to have a file format set up in Oracle
so that Oracle can receive that information,
automate it, calculate it, and again,
not break the ongoing tax and other implications.
The goal of this particular contract
is to maintain support for those things
that we are legally and legislatively mandated to do,
to actually move forward with a full integrative system,
and I'll be clear, I've said this in prior spaces,
does require us to re-implement our ERP.
So there is another, if we wanna move to a standard of,
we are logging, tracking, verifying pay elements,
including overtime, in a way that's more clearly audible
to things like purpose and goal and timeline,
and who and limits on persons
and not doing such follow-up manually,
That is a new ERP structure.
But we can pull files in to verify against.
With this, we also just want to make sure, though,
as a key starting point, that things
like the federal government's exemption of overtime
under its guidelines from taxation
were able to capture on employees' W2s.
And I say it that way because our definition
of what was required for overtime under RMO use
is not the same thing as the federal definition
for what's tax exempt.
So every overtime hour on an employee's time card
isn't tax exempt for federal purposes.
It's not just because we classified it as overtime,
it's tax exempt.
So there's these other calculations
that our system has to be robust enough to run
to keep up with that federal law
to ensure that we're providing proper
tax documentation to our employees.
So that's like the biggest left,
not until you mentioned obviously,
ensuring that we can program appropriate RMO use, and I would say even more
critically than that, as we get routine patches from Oracle that are related to
updates in the system, updated tax laws and withholding rules from the state and
federal government to ensure that we're able to process them timely and not
delay people's proper compensation. That's our key primary goal with this
contract. I see, so that makes sense and I know the report says payroll
calculation errors, right, as a key objective.
And I guess my last thing I'll just throw out there is I know that we approved some
type of system to help support OPD in their overtime calculation, and so I guess my flag
would be just making sure all of these systems are able to talk and communicate to one another.
I think the key step, and you're talking about Telestap, which Fire uses, one of the key
things that has to happen for OPD and, you know, we had an audit report at the prior
council meeting on this particular item. For telestaff to work for OPD does actually require
that particular system to be configured to work for OPD. And then there's a second conversation
about it running as a payroll system. So there's kind of separate spaces. Over time, like tracking
and validation is one space, getting it to actually talk to your payroll system in a
that's robust enough to support again all the legal and tax documentations a
separate space. I am, you know, we'll see if this particular contract could get us
there. I am skeptical that our current R12 financial system is robust enough to
have that integration work in a way that doesn't break everything else in it, but
we would need this contract to even explore that as a possibility. I think
it's more likely that we need to stand up Telestaff or OPD in such a way that
that it works for just the normal tracking
the way fire uses it.
And then as we're pursuing a next-gen ERP structure,
be that the next version of Oracle,
the next version of whatever,
we build from the beginning
a proper Telestaf integration into it.
But if we're gonna even explore that as an option,
we would need these contract resources.
Okay, thank you.
Councilman Banke, okay.
Can you elaborate on that last point that you said?
So what needs to change with this other,
just this telestaff system?
I don't understand what that is.
And is that something you'll bring
to this committee as well?
Correct, so part of what,
and this again, recently came up because you had,
it's a subject to the audit follow-up report,
and this is subject to a lot of discussion
at that prior council meeting on that.
Telestaff is a structure that can be used for,
primarily for scheduling and for tracking.
it needs to be configured in a way that's usable and reliable
for tracking the information in an electronic manner.
Once it's robust enough to do that tracking,
primarily around things like reason and purpose
and authorization and flow,
you can then have a conversation about taking the data
in that and using it to drive a payroll process,
if that makes sense.
It needs to be configured in a way that's robust enough
to track all the things 100% accurately and consistently
before you could use that as a payroll structure,
because payroll has to be 100% accurate,
again, follow all these federal rules.
So right now the work is to get Telestaff to function,
and that's, it's a little bit out of my scope,
it's IT's project working with PD to get it to function
as sort of that tracking and scheduling system.
Once it's like far enough down that line,
and that'll take some time to get to,
and it's really accurate and it's working,
then you can talk about trying to have it talk
to a financial system to then automate the payment system
so that you can, again, feed those files
and track that information jointly.
But that's a little bit further along the line.
I hope to be at that stage far enough along our line
about thinking about the next generation of ERP in general
that what we're really talking about
is having a robust scheduling system
talk to a new implementation of our ERP
so that those things are seamless.
But we need to build them that way kind of from the beginning
to really make it work to provide the data and tracking
that everyone wants to see in terms of reporting.
An ERP?
Sorry.
And we've been using acronyms this entire time.
I wanted to clarify that, and I did it myself.
ERP is Enterprise Resource Program.
So Oracle R12, Release 12, is our current ERP.
There are other ERP systems that you
might hear of from other vendors, but ours is Oracle R12. I would note the other acronyms
that we brought up. We said the words AWS, which is alternative work schedules, and RDO
is random day off, which is one structure for alternative work schedule. We said those
acronyms earlier. I forgot to mention those. That's what we were talking about. Also, when
we talk about PARS and NERS, that's personnel action record and new employee action record
that relate to our hiring and internal movement processes
for personnel.
Okay, thank you.
Well, we look forward to the updates on that as well.
We can move to public speakers.
Holly and the names that sign up to speak
on item number three,
Mississauga, Ollabala and Blair Beekman.
Okay, did y'all get clarity on the fiscal impact statement
that this item is subject to funding availability?
You need to identify funds and so what does that mean?
You don't have the money at this time.
Or if you did, you would identify the source of funding.
The other thing is, this is an agreement that would start,
you always do this when you're on the hide stuff.
You put the start of the agreement
in the end of the agreement.
The start of the agreement is July 1st, 2026.
This is October 13, 2026.
You did this last week with the consuls,
MOU with the Oakland Police Department
that involved starting July 1st, 2026.
You approved it in October.
Is this gonna be a continuation of something
that you do all the time where you approve items
after the fact this process, this could result in some liability if you continue to do this.
This thing says, the document says that when you have this in place, it will result in
not having delayed implications, implementation of negotiated MOUs.
So this has been in place, but we had a delayed MOU last week.
So we had something in place that was supposed to eliminate delays of MOU's provisions, but
it happened.
So it happened that you had a MOU that was delayed.
Okay.
Don't look confused.
Don't look confused.
Thank you for your comments, Mrs. Sada. Yeah, thank you. And we do not have Blaire
Beekman in the queue. Chair, that concludes all speakers on this item.
All right, Kenzima Brown. Excellent, I just thought I would ask the fiscal
question. As I read the report, I guess my understanding of it is this will come
from Fund 4510, already allocated the $250,000, and then in the next upcoming
Upcoming budget cycle the remaining funds that are already in 45 10 will be utilized for the complete amount
That that is accurate and should we not need this contract resource?
We will of course not spend against if this is contract authority if we don't need it. We won't spend it
Is there a motion
So moved to the October 20th council
second
Thank you. We have a motion made by councilmember Brown second by councilmember Unger to approve the recommendation to staff and to forward this item to
The October 20th City Council agenda on roll council members Brown. I
Unger I Wong excused and chair
I thank you motion passes with three eyes one excused Wong to port this item to the October 20th
2026 City Council agenda and to the maker of the motion that's on consent. Thank you on consent
now reading in item three
Sorry item four adopts a resolution authorizing the city administrator to amend the agreement with
modaxo traffic management Inc for parking citation system software
Hardware and related services to extend the term up to March 31st
2028 for an amount not to exceed five million two hundred seventy nine thousand one hundred forty three dollars over the amended term
including authorization to pay up to one million three hundred forty seven thousand three hundred twenty eight dollars and
in outstanding invoices and waving the competitive multi-step solicitation process and we have
three speakers four speakers that sign up to speak on this item.
Good morning Chair and members of the Finance and Management Committee.
My name is Nicole Welch, Revenue and Tax Administrator.
Before you this morning is staffs recommendation to authorize a fourth and final amendment
to the city's existing agreement with Medaxo Traffic Management Inc. doing business as
Trellent.
The proposed amendment would extend the agreement for 24 months from April 2026 through March
2028 for an amount not to exceed $5.3 million.
This amount includes authorization to pay up to $1.3 million in outstanding invoices
services provided between April and September 2026. Staff is also
requesting a waiver of the competitive multi-step solicitation process for
this extension. The City's parking enforcement and citation management
operations rely on this platform for citation processing, permit administration,
payment processing, customer service portals, collections activities and
integration with field enforcement technologies including handheld devices
and license plate recognition systems.
These services are critical to maintaining
daily parking operations and supporting the collection
of approximately 29.7 million in budgeted parking revenue
for the current fiscal year.
The existing agreement expired in April, 2026.
Following the transfer of program responsibility
from the DOT Department of Transportation
to the Finance Department in July, 2026,
Finance undertook a review of all existing contracts,
vendor services, and operational practices
to ensure alignment with the city's current needs
and standards.
This review also included negotiations
regarding contract provisions
and the vendor's compensation structure
for collection services.
Staff evaluated alternatives and considered concerns
regarding the vendor's contingent collection fees.
As part of these negotiations,
the party agreed that the collections fees
would not be applied to citations
under the state mandated indigent parking payment plan,
where such fines are waived under state law.
Staff is recommending the continuation
of the special collection services
during the extension period to avoid disruption
to collection activities and prevent the transfer
of additional impact to existing city staff
without the necessary resources.
Most importantly, this proposed extension
intended to serve as a temporary bridge, providing the city with sufficient time
to conduct a comprehensive and competitive procurement process for a
long-term parking management solution. As part of this effort, finance will
evaluate not only citation management and payment processing technologies but
also opportunities to improve broader parking operations, enforcement practices,
and revenue controls. As discussed with this committee last month regarding
parking garage enforcement, staff is also exploring a potential transition to a
gated entry and exit model at city-owned parking garages. This approach could
strengthen parking compliance, improve revenue accountability, and help ensure
that parking fees are appropriately collected. This proposed extension will
allow staff to evaluate these operational improvements alongside the
city's future technology needs rather than simply replacing the existing
system without considering opportunities for broader modernization.
Ultimately, staff recommendation is intended to preserve operational
continuity, protect an important city revenue source, and establish a clear
path toward a more efficient, accountable, and sustainable parking management
program. This concludes my presentation. We are available to answer any questions
the committee may have. Thank you very much for this report. I am very concerned
with this contract, to be honest. I think that we receive, we hear from our
constituents all the time that parking fees are too high. We have so many, we
We have enough people who can't pay it, it's a serious burden on a lot of our communities
here in Oakland, and to have read that 30 percent goes to a company that doesn't even
do the collections, frankly is, I mean, really is a blow to public trust on where this money
is going in my opinion.
I cannot support extending a contract with this company,
but I do, up until you can find a better vendor,
but I do have some questions.
First, I know this is not the fault of this department
because it was under a different department
until earlier this year,
but why bring it to finance so many months
after the contract has expired?
And if there's no explanation,
or if someone from DOT is here also,
I'm open to hearing that as well,
because if there's a reason,
maybe there is one I would love to know.
I don't see anyone here from DOT
who can speak to that, Chair Ramachandran.
However, for lack of a better word,
of inheriting this particular process,
our intent in revenue, or more particularly finance,
is to bring this into compliance with city policies
and procedures, getting the vendor paid
from the time that they provided services in April.
And the 24 month that we are requesting
is encompassing of that timeframe.
So from April until currently,
that will be included along with the procurement process,
which unfortunately my colleague is impacted
due to lack of staffing.
And we have to look at this holistically.
Realistically, we absolutely would
love to be able to say that we can get this done in this time.
And more than likely, with a lot of concentrated effort,
my team will make it happen.
However, I would not even venture
to speak about what was happening
with the other, our fellow Department of the DOT
at this point.
Thank you.
My other question is, why are we giving this company 30%
to do collections when that is work that is done by the DMV
or internally with the city or by estate programs
to reduce the amount of fees in the first place?
Well, why was a private company getting this 30%?
The fee is part of the contractor's compensation
for specialized services and is contingent
on successfully collecting delinquent citation balances.
The other portions of the DMV
and the Franchise Tax Board in their collections,
that is something that my team is currently
in negotiations with the vendor.
And I would like to also highlight that the vendor
is here to speak to some of the things
that you may have from the dais,
if that is what you so choose.
To the chair, I would also note that
the breakdown of costs on page four provides options
both with and without the special collection services
if the body's interested in seeing that distinction.
Thank you, I did look at that distinction
and it's pretty much the same minus $300,000.
So we're taking something that was passed on to consumers for work that should have been
or was done by the DMV.
So we're taking away that free money that was charged to consumers and making the city
pay for that.
That doesn't make sense to me.
So neither of these options are palatable to me, quite frankly.
But I'll pass it to my colleagues before continuing with my other questions.
Councilmember Unger, then Brown.
So am I understanding this correctly, that this is a 24-month contract but six months
of it have already passed, so it's 18 months going forward.
Yes.
And I agree with Council Member Ramachandran
that this is not, this company is not performing
the services that I would like them to
at the value I'd like them to,
but I also understand that we can't go cold turkey.
Do you need the full 18 months to do a full RFP?
Is there any way to shorten that at all?
We will try our hardest, but I have to look
at the entire ecosystem of the procurement process.
We are, and we are in a process,
I would like to draw your attention to page five.
We've given a timeline on what we are releasing.
At this particular point, we put out an RFI this month.
Our intent is to put out a request for proposal,
RFP, in the month of November.
At that time, there will be respondents to their RFP,
And then at that time, we will be able to have an internal evaluation of services that
align with our business needs.
And at that point, we would actually go through and select the vendor and then bring it to
council to advise that this is our recommendation and we're looking at the entire schedule of
council along with everything else that's coming up.
So I would give and I also want to point out that if this vendor is or there is another
vendor that is selected, there is going to be terabytes of data, historical data that
we will need to transition over to a potential new vendor.
In my past life, any data conversion does need time to ensure the integrity of the data.
So I would say that I would like, I would recommend having the full time, however I
would defer to Council and this committee on what exactly what their requirements are.
So to be clear, I don't have any problem with this vendor, I have problem with the terms
of our contract with this vendor.
And so, you know, if we can renegotiate to a better term with this vendor, I'm not, you
know, wedded to switching vendors.
Would it be unworkable for you if we were to shorten the period to 18 months, which
would be six months in the past and 12 months going forward?
Would that be a burden on you?
Would you be?
I mean, I don't want to, like, give you something that you can't work with.
So I'm just trying to figure out what is realistic.
I think that we can, we would look at the six months that we are already here.
We would need to start absolutely.
it's going to be very clear
that we would be in a crunch
and I'm just going to be very
clear we would absolutely be in
a crunch.
Okay.
So the chair to councilmember
under- if the pleasure of the
body is to go to like an 18
months time line what it may
mean is we may be coming back
to you with another extension
depending on what the timeline
of the transition looks like I
do want you to hear that it is
the intention of our staff to
we understand your concerns about the terms and conditions
of this agreement.
Council Member Bell.
Excellent.
Well, I definitely agree with my colleagues.
And, but for myself, I'm more interested in,
I am actually interested in the vendor
because as the report kind of states
and the data that you mentioned, the transfer of data,
if that's the route that we end up going,
in some of the research that I was doing,
given that this company is collecting license plate data,
one of the reports said that in L.A., for example,
the Department of Transportation actually put in
certain privacy protections to ensure
that community information is actually protected.
And so we know that a lot of our residents here
with the type of data that is being collected.
And I didn't really see that in detail
as it relates to this vendor.
So I feel like I definitely agree with,
of course we gotta pay the outstanding invoices.
But I think I would be interested in,
of course what my colleagues mentioned
about the cost that we are paying,
the terms of this agreement, I think we could do better.
And then in addition, I am curious
what other vendors are also available.
Thank you.
So to me, the option here on the table
with the difference of the terms
with the special collection services
and without being pretty much the same, doesn't work.
We're being ripped off of either the payer
has been ripped off by that 30%
or that's gonna be on the city to pay
for not work being done
because this is collections that the DMV should do.
I guess my question is, is this fee typical?
I mean, do companies like this get this extra 30%
to do work that the DMV also does?
I believe it is within the range, depending on the type.
So by industry, this is typically within that range,
between 30 to 20%.
To further mention to what the chair just requested,
the fee amount is not unusual,
the 30% fee amount is not unusual.
And Nicole, please comment further
if you would like to comment more deeply
on this, I'm not a collection professional,
but it is curious to me the fact
that this is already going through
a separate collection process,
and this is not necessarily
the full collection suite work worth of work,
normal collections, this is about remitting money
to a different collection entity in the sense of the DMV
or the Franchise Tax Board.
So I'm not gonna say anything further
than I understand your concern, Chair,
around that particular dynamic.
The percentage is not unusual,
but this dynamic is not something I've at least seen before.
Although again, Nicole, please chime in
if I'm wrong about this.
This is not my normal wheelhouse of expertise.
The, to be very transparent, it is the business,
the internal business process and cycle
that we are inheriting from DOT
that will need to be expanded and explored.
Where we are at is that on day 61,
there is an additional fee that is added
onto the actual ticket.
So you have a life cycle of the ticket is issued on day one
And then between day one to day 21,
you are within that life cycle
of the first notification from being issued the ticket
and receiving notification from our vendor,
which I would say by way of us.
Then you go through the second phase,
which is day 21 up until 60,
which is your second penalty phase.
And then from there, from day 61,
is when the 30% is actually attached to the actual ticket.
That is an internal business decision,
which the department, and more specifically revenue,
will be updating with the upcoming RFP process.
So we will not have a question of where a possibility,
and I wanna be very clear, there is more than likely
we're looking at an equity angle,
or we're looking at this contract through an equity lens
of if there is going to be a collection fee
that will be attached to a ticket,
and if there is, at what point will it be?
And that is where we're dealing with that internally.
That's the reason why there's a lot of internal discussions
and internal, I would say, negotiating within ourselves
on what our new business process is going to look like.
I understand. So, I'm definitely not trying to add an undue amount of work on your department
that I know is trying to improve these systems, and both collect. I think the goals are twofold.
We want to collect more for the city, with parking as a whole, but we also don't want
violators and people who have to pay the tickets to be burdened with this extra 30% when that
work is already being done by the franchise tax board or DMV or the tickets being reduced
altogether by the state. So I think this is my concerns are really not just we need more
money for the city, but I don't like this table without the special collection services
that then transfers most of that 30% to us, the city, which we also can't afford. So I
I would love to see a better option,
and one that ends sooner with another vendor,
potentially, with an RFP, however,
or with the same vendor with better terms.
I am open-minded, but with my own set of values
of how bad this seems to be
and how much the city's been seeming
to feel cheated off of this,
and really, ticket payers seem to be cheated off of this,
I would make a motion to have this contract only be continued to the end of this fiscal
year, so June 30th, and to, in the meantime, come to us with a different alternative.
If it's the pleasure of this body, if that's the amount available, we can bring you back
options with that shorter-term extension, it will have to bring you back a series of
options as to what that would look like in that space.
I do think that we can have a conversation with our existing vendor about what an extension
under better terms would look like than this space beyond that or what a transition would
look like.
It may impact what we're able to do with the RFX process, so I just want to be really clear
about that, but we can explore other options in that space.
just I want to be clear when we talk about the end of this calendar the very
beginning of next calendar year I would expect that you would hear back from us
again with what those options might be for this body to consider before the end
of this fiscal yeah I was gonna say we would need to you'll hear from us again
on this topic and this contract in either December or January with what
that option set would need to be given if we're if you're giving us sort of a
timeline to the end of the fiscal year we would need to have something
The next steps of whatever that might look like ready to go with an options ready to go for you in December or January
So I just for the for the benefit of the committee's workload understand we'll be bringing back to you those options relatively shortly
Following this space, but we understand that Council's apprehend the bodies apprehension if that's what it is to go further than that date
And if we have to do this
Even then if we have to do this in sort of chunks and piecemeal to keep you appraised
I understand that this is aberrant and I want to speak to what I've heard before on a prior item and
More broadly
We are
Endeavoring to try to get all of our contracts into a place where we are not in a space of having
In arrears payments and doing them in behind that is a lift broadly from my department across the city
We are working diligently to do that
We understand I want to make the point like we understand that this is not an acceptable practice
We are however holding to if this body has not authorized
A contract it is not going to be paid until you do it
I just I do want to be really clear that is our key line and so we appreciate your indulgence as we try to clean up
The practice authority on these because we're trying to hold on that payment line that this body needs to have authorized at first
Period so of course needing to pay. What's already owed?
What would be the best way to proceed with this item because I don't
especially with different this is both to the finance department and the
parliamentary and would this be to
Hold item in committee would it be to authorize?
Past payment and up till the end of the fiscal year
But we also don't know which of these options that you all want to select the what special collection services or without
my
thought process would be if this body wants and I would defer to our city attorney to
Help us with the nature of how the motion would need to read if you want to extend the term of the contract until
July 1
At the rates approved and if you're taking a recommendation for me
I would recommend you continue the current collection process as
administering Welch mentioned we have to explore a new business process with the new RFx and so as a
component of that I would imagine continuing our current practice would
cause the least disruption there so that we can spend the most staff time as
possible on the next approach as to how we wanna move forward
as opposed to like in this moment also revising
a current practice.
So it gives us the most of like continuing
the current space as it were.
As Administrator Welch mentioned, anything that relates
to the indigent collection services is already removed
from this space.
That is not a practice we're gonna do going forward period
because of the legal implications of that.
So if we're gonna do a sort of short extension to July 1,
I would suggest it's the current practice
with including the special collective services
so that Nicole's team can focus on what tomorrow looks like.
And again, that recommendation for what tomorrow looks like,
that is given that we would need transition time,
need to update you, we're not bringing that to you in June,
we're bringing that to you December, January.
That's what I mean, if we wanna focus on that
as opposed to immediately thinking about how to change
how we operate today.
Council member Brown.
Well, I was gonna second your motion,
but did you wanna restate it?
Yeah, I'll restate it to authorizing
the City of Minnesota to amend the agreement
to extend up till June 30th, 2027 under the same terms
with direction to come back to council
as soon as possible with other options.
And as part of the discussion, also Council Member Brown's recommendation of privacy protections,
license rate reader, avoiding collection of that data, et cetera.
And authorize the payment of the outstanding invoices.
Moving to the speakers for item number four, calling in the names that signed up to speak,
Sean Machen, Asada Ollabala, Blair Beekman, and Kevin Dalley.
I appreciate your pushing back about extending this contract indefinitely.
I think it should be extended for a minimum amount of time.
Remember when this contract expired, this city administrator was talking about moving
the entire parking division to finance.
This has been a mess for a long time.
A reminder, parking policy is an integrated system, traffic safety is part of the parking
system, and that includes decisions on which devices to purchase and who to have a contract
with.
Since finance has taken over parts of parking, I don't see an understanding from the finance
department of how parking relates to traffic safety, shopping in Oakland,
visiting Oakland. Where is the input from Oak Dot? I'm quite sure that if
finance department had been, had invited Oak Dot to attend this meeting, they
would have attended. I don't see them. That's a failure from the finance
department about understanding parking and collections is part of the same
system. Earlier this year, Oak Dots Michael Ford presented to Public Works
and Transportation on the Montclair parking garage renewal. At that time
parking was part of transportation and Mr. Ford pointed out the integration
between the garage rates, the street parking.
We're rolling out demand-based parking this year
in most streets in Oakland.
How does this contract relate to that?
I don't see any information here about these items.
Thank you.
Hello, good morning.
Sean Mackin with representing Medaxo Traffic Management.
Someone we appreciate the opportunity for this extension.
We've had a long standing on healthy relationship with the city of Oakland and I'm or I'm here
and available to answer any questions if needed so thank you.
Just a reminder that both item three and item four on the agenda as a result of rule twenty
eight had these items for this particular item gone to rules the vetting of the appropriate
Placing of the item as far as what committee could have been discussed
That's the consequences of the abuse that y'all having with use of rule 28
And not going to the rules committee that that committee exists to delve into
Many issues including if the item is being placed in the appropriate committee for discussion
The other thing is it looks like this
outstanding invoice could be a violation of the prop payment policy.
And if that is the case, what are the consequences if we are not in
compliance with the prompt payment policy?
Secondly, uh, within the report, it says in April of 2023, the city
administrator extended a contract, but that extension was not with the
I'm a traffic management group, it was with the group called Conduant.
So my question is, at what point was there an amendment by this body of the city council
to change management?
Because the report doesn't indicate when a change took place.
But you give a history of the contract arrangements related to this item.
but it doesn't address when that took place.
The contract expired on April 2026, an extension.
And your discussion today lends to looking closely
at when staff brings waivers without.
Thank you for your comments, Ms. Olavala.
Chair, that concludes all speakers on this item.
Okay, thank you, I think there's a motion.
Yes, we have a motion made by Chair Ramachandran,
seconded by council member Brown to approve as amended
the recommendations of staff and to forward this item
to the October 20th City Council agenda
with the following amendments.
Authorizing the city administrator to amend the agreement
to extend up till June 30th, 2027 under the same terms
with direction to come back to council as soon as possible
with other vendor options to also include privacy protections
to avoid avoiding collections of that data
and authorize the payment of the outstanding invoice.
Okay, on roll, Council Members Brown.
Aye.
Unger.
Aye.
Wong excused, and Chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
Thank you, item four passes with three ayes one excused.
Wong to forward this item to the October 20th
City Council agenda, and to the makers of the motion.
Is that on consent?
Yes.
Thank you.
On consent with those amendments read into record.
Now moving on to open forum, calling in the names
signed up to speak. Misasada Olliballa, Blair Beagman, and Kevin Dahle. I'm gonna
ask that we look at what's happening with the contract with ABC Securities,
contract expired September the 30th of this year. So you had a month to month
and that was supposed to stop. Have you renewed the contract in some form so
that we currently are we doing again having an arrangement with a body and
there is no contract in place. My second request is that any contracts you do in
the future that has personnel involved for which you are going to be looking at
the race demographics to say that they form equitable employment, if that's
going to be the case. ABC represents that there are not a lot of African-Americans but
there are a lot of Africans that are being employed in security. You go to any security
situation in this city. Kevin Dalley, I'm having continued concern about police over
time the OPD contract extension and the way the police handle traffic collision reports.
I just read one of the most poorly written reports on the fatality that happened on Friday,
October 9th on Foothill Boulevard. The OPD, you know, reminder collision reports, some
of the worst overtime, including 23-hour stretches, this report almost reads like the person didn't
have enough sleep before writing the report. OPD mentions a fatal collision involving a
pedestrian and a vehicle, but then as you read onward, the pedestrian never reoccurs.
It becomes a vehicle and a motorcycle.
Don't know what happened to the bidet.
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Dalley.
Chair, that concludes all speakers.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.