Good morning and welcome to the finance and management committee meeting of Tuesday October 27th
2026 the time is now 904 a.m. And this meeting may come to order before taking role
I will provide instructions on how to submit speaker cards for items on this agenda if you're here with us in chamber and would
Like to submit a speaker card
Please bow it out and turn one into myself or click representative no later than 10 minutes after the start of this meeting or
before the item is read into record if
If you're registering to speak via zoom that is now due 24 hours prior to the start of this meeting time
This meeting came to order at 904 a.m. And speaker cards will no longer be accepted after 914 a.m
We'll now proceed with taking roll
council members Brown excuse
hunger
here long
Here and chair Ramachandran present start
Councilmember Brown it's
Present. Thank you. Noting that we have four members present and chair before we begin. Do you have any announcements at this time?
No, just gratitude for coming in early everyone since we have a big agenda. Thank you
Okay, starting off with item one noting that this is a special meeting
So there are no minutes to be approved and reading an item to determination of schedule about standing committee items
And we have two speakers on this item
Okay, we can hear the public speakers
Calling in the names that sign up to speak on item to miss Asada Ola Bala and Blair Beekman
Noting that miss Asada is waving her time. Mr. Beekman. Do you still wish okay?
Chair that concludes all speakers on item two. All right. Is there a motion?
So moved
I'll second it
Thank you
That was a motion made by councilmember Unger seconded by councilmember Wong to accept the determination of schedule outstanding committee items
as is. On roll council members Brown? Aye. Unger? Aye. Wong? Aye. And Chair Ramachandran?
Aye. Thank you. Item two passes with four ayes to accept the determination of scheduled
outstanding committee items as is. Reading in item three, receive an informational report
on all purchases and contracts authorized by the city administrator within the city administrator's
contract authority during fiscal years 2,023 to 24, 2,024 to 25, 2,025 to 26 in
accordance with the Oakland Municipal Code section 2.04.020 and there are two
speakers that signed up to speak on this item.
All right we'll hear from staff. Good morning.
Good morning council members. I'm Laura Gonzales Woodward. I am the procurement and
contracts administrator in finance and today I'm providing an informational
report on all purchases and contracts authorized by the city administrator or the city administrator
designee within the city administrators contract authority during fiscal years twenty three
twenty four twenty four twenty five and twenty five twenty six in accordance with the Oakland
municipal code section two point oh four point oh two oh which requires the city administrator
to present a report to city council listing all purchases and contracts authorized by
by the city administrator within the city administrator's contract authority.
This informational report includes data for construction contracts, professional service
agreements, grant agreements, as well as contract purchase orders under the city administrator's
authority not to exceed $250,000.
For contracts and purchase orders under $50,000, informal solicitations were procured.
For contracts exceeding $50,000, formal solicitations such as requests for proposals, requests for
qualifications, and requests for quotes were procured.
Cooperative agreements may also have been leveraged as procurement authority to execute agreements
and purchase orders not to exceed $250,000.
Our team has pulled this data from two sources of truth, Oracle and the Contract Work Order
Portal, in order to provide the most transparency at a specific point in time.
A includes contracts and purchase orders executed
with suppliers specific for each department,
the contract type with a brief description of services,
the dollar amount, and the start date.
I do wanna share that there is data specific
to fiscal year 2223 captured in this report,
though it can be disregarded as the reporting period
for this item is for fiscal years 2324, 2425, and 2526.
And in the spirit of transparency,
this report has been published annually,
Though fiscal year 2324 and 2425 were delayed in reporting
as there was a transition of leadership
and oversight compliance within finance.
This informational report had historically been presented
by the controller as purchasing had previously reported
in that unit.
In fiscal year 2526, finance established
the Procurement Contracts and Purchasing Bureau
and this reporting function is now moved
under this purview of the new bureau.
And we are committed to bringing this report back
annually every fall after the close of each fiscal year.
And this concludes my background share.
And I'm open to answer any questions the council may have
of me at this time.
Thank you.
I do have a question which I know some of our public speakers
are going to bring up as well.
Why was this not brought in 24, 25, and the past two years?
So we did have a change in leadership.
and this reporting function was sitting
in the controller's office.
I think there was some transitional period,
but we identified that we needed to report out.
It was our intention to bring this informational report
in the spring.
And unfortunately, the council, or excuse me,
the FMC in June was canceled.
And so it has experienced a delay in bringing it
to FMC but to share there was just uncertainty
of who would be reporting out and it was determined
that our bureau would continue, well we would start
this new report out and taking over for the controller.
Well a couple of things.
We had FMC in June.
There was not all the meetings were canceled.
A change of leadership for, this is a long period
time we're talking about. This is 23-24, 24-25 and 25-26. So how come the who is
to report on this item wasn't resolved within this three-year period? So we did
have a changeover with finance leadership, our finance director, and I
did address this as a concern when I did realize that it had not been reported
out, I will share that the data that we pulled was actually more information than it has
historically been presented.
Information has usually been presented from Oracle.
We wanted to ensure that we were also addressing professional services and grant agreements.
We believe that had not been presented in years past, as well as cooperative agreements.
So we wanted to ensure that we were able to capture all of the data, that we believe that
the council and the public deserve to understand.
I will also share that that includes pulling data from an additional resource platform
and that did take a bit of time.
So when we did discover there was probably a delay in the report out here to FMC.
Okay. So moving forward with a new set of leadership in the Finance Department, is this
going to be presented every year?
Yes, every fall after the close of the fiscal year.
Thank you. And yes, again, for the record, we did have FMC in June, so that is that cannot
be the reason why it didn't come for the last three years. Colleagues, Council member. Oh,
yes, Director Johnson. Yes.
Sorry to the chair and to maybe put a finer point on the question the I
Can't speak to the 23 24 report
I know the 24 25 report because I was involved in some the conversations around that got delayed due to the some of the balancing
Efforts and honestly got overlooked the other thing. Could you say that? Yeah the 23 24 report
I cannot specifically speak to I do know the 24 25 report
Which would have been the one that that's the to the one year late year if that makes sense the one
That's one year late the 2526 report. That's the what part of it that's on time
2425 report I know got delayed in part due to the
Rebalancing efforts that we were doing right at the end of 2025 with the budget if you remember as part of those actions
We had pulled back on several grant agreements and there were some other things that were happening at that time
So I know that's a component of what happened here. I will also I do want to emphasize what?
you can see here that this is
what the city administrator
can saw Woodward said that this
report is actually more complete
than prior reports there's
information in this report on
grant agreements cooperative
agreements and a number of other
things that candidly previously
had not been included in this
sort of reporting this is a much
more comprehensive report of all
the types of different ways
under the same in this rare
story that's been spent and that
And I think we have multiple modules in order to pull that.
And to reiterate what she said,
the commitment is that this report will come to you
in the fall of every year.
So next year we'll bring the 26, 27 report.
And it'll happen after we close the contracting modules
for the fiscal year.
So this, roughly this time every year
you should be seeing this report going forward
in its complete form.
Thank you and I do appreciate that it is more comprehensive
than in the past.
That in the future, if we go, again, through actions where we'll need to do budget rebalancing
and pull back contracts, I hope that's not a reason for this report not to come.
There can always be supplemental information saying, hey, these things that we said the
city administrator authorized contracts for never happened, that's understandable.
But I think there is an interest in the public to understand what the city administrator
is authorizing that doesn't come to counsel.
I do have a couple of other questions
that I will go first to Council Member Unger-Brown,
and then I'll finish up.
But again, thank you for making a report that's
more comprehensive, and we look forward
to having this again next fall.
Question for the administration and or the finance director.
Is 250 the right number?
Does that number go up with time?
Is it too high?
What's your opinion on that?
I will also invite my colleague from the City of Missouri
to opine on this.
So a little bit of history, if I were to go back,
I think it's around 2013.
This number was $100,000.
It was raised to $250,000.
I think it was 2013, if I'm remembering correctly,
is when the authorities moved up.
It has not gone up with inflation since then,
so it is lower.
I would suggest that as we're,
and we have a conversation later on a different process
we're looking at to revise and look at contracts.
I think we should look at the thresholds in that space.
However, as opposed to it just being the dollar amount,
I do think that's part of what we have to think about
is a more nuanced authority limit.
As an example, $250,000 in one fiscal year
for one contract is actually a lot,
but $250,000 to do a competitive solicitation
over five years is not very much.
And so some of what we should probably think in
to this context is sort of timing and capacity,
are we engaged in a $50,000 service
that we're just gonna go out and bid competitively
as required under this process for an eight year period
and that would potentially start to trigger this 2050
and that students like it would be below the threshold
where Council wants them to be involved,
whereas you candidly might wanna be involved
in a one year, $200,000 contract
because it's just one effort.
So I think we should be nuanced
in how we think about revising that authority
and we should do it in the context
of all of our other process and procedural improvements
so that the scrutiny is really put by this body
where it needs to be placed.
And so I think that's an ongoing conversation
we should have.
Great, thank you.
That's a member, Brown Van Wong.
Excellent, well thank you so much for bringing the report.
I know that this is my first time kind of engaging on this
and so I guess what I decided to do
was just really focus in on the timeframe.
Like in the report, I focus in on the timeframe
that I've been in office.
And looking through just some of the contracting agreements.
And so, and while I recognize that this report
looks different than others,
I'm a couple things that I was curious about.
So for example, I'm just looking,
it's page 63 of the report.
I'm looking at an item where it's like $26,000
to Oakland venue management to provide
traffic control services during June 20, Juneteenth, 2026.
And so one thing that I know is that during the budget,
we said, well, one, we usually set aside funds
for special events for OPD.
And so I guess like as I was looking at this,
I've been curious if this report in the future
could actually share with us like what fund
it's coming from?
Like, is that gonna fall under like
the special funds that we gave for downtown public safety
or downtown operations, or is it actually,
I know it's labeled as police department,
so is that coming out of like over time,
or like where are those dollars coming from?
And so that was just like one of a handful of examples
where I think that the report should be sharing,
you know, is this coming from O&M
from a certain department?
like how are they financing these various like balances?
So that was the first thing that I noticed.
And then I know that in the agenda report,
it mentioned how, and maybe this is just something
as a body we have to maybe make some changes around,
but you have, or groups that can get up to the 250,000,
And then within the same year, also get that again
without coming to council.
And so I feel like that's a red flag.
Where if the balance is totaling more than 250,000
in a given year, then that should
automatically be coming to us.
And so I guess I would like some feedback
from the administration on that.
I can share.
Through the chair, Council Member Brown,
I do want to highlight that when we do a procurement effort,
we can select a particular contractor.
And then if there is an identified need from the department
and we conduct another procurement effort,
we could potentially select that contractor.
So they could have multiple contracts
that will over exceed $250,000 collectively,
but they are for different services.
So if it were for the same service
and it were to exceed the $250,000
for that particular project,
we would have the department bring that to council.
So if it was a different procurement effort
and we're awarding a new contract,
that is very much possible.
Yeah, I felt like when I was reading through this,
and if you give me a moment, I can pull up the example,
but I was just noticing, I see what you mean
that is going to different departments.
And then, okay, and then my other question that I had is,
what is the, like, what does the process look like
for the departments to kind of go this route
through the administration?
Like what are the, what are the,
what's on the checklist that makes it so that
they don't have to, you know, go to counsel
on some of these items that are 250,000?
So we work with the departments to identify their need
and we get a better understanding
of their scope of services.
And based on that, we also, we would ask them,
what is your budget allotted for this project?
If they say, hey, we're looking at $50,000,
we expect this project to be short-term,
or we've done our due diligence,
we've done a market check, we think the scope,
it's gonna run us under $50,000.
We would advise of the best procurement path forward.
So if it's anticipated to be under $50,000,
we would advise them to do an informal solicitation
which they would procure three bids from a minimum of three potential proposers.
If it were based on the scope of services, if it were to exceed that $50,000 threshold,
we would advise that they would pursue a formal solicitation, be that request for proposal
or request for qualifications.
Yeah, I guess once again my flag here is, and the reason why I'm asking about the process
is because there's an item on page 62
where the contract that was given
was $400,000 for information technology.
And so I guess what I'm calling attention to
is maybe the inconsistency around some of the items
that end up coming to us that are at this 250
and then this one is clearly over.
And so that is why I'm like curious like what is,
like what is the checklist that is determining like,
oh actually we're gonna get this signed off
by the administration.
And I feel like I'm not really able to identify it.
Often the items that are closer to the $250,000 threshold
but come to council require a waiver
of the Small Local Business Enterprise Program
that threshold is that at 50,000 and so you'll see that even though it's within
the city administrators signing authority the city administrator cannot
waive the small local business enterprise program requirements and so
that's what ends up showing up to council even though it's under 250,000.
I see okay thank you. If I could I wanted to address one of the questions that
I think that councilmember brown raised and I think it's useful to understand in the context of this are processing and our reporting eventual needs to change technology, the amounts you're seeing in this are agreed contract award amounts, they aren't spending amounts, and that's a really important distinction here, this is not the amount spent, it's the amount that we awarded through a bid process.
are candidly not robust enough to do a lot of that tracking the way we would
want them to and it's actually on spending that you would pull up like
what fund is it coming from as an example you can have one contract that
is used by multiple apartments from multiple fund sources in fact we do
certain citywide bid contracts I'll just pick the most sort of high-level one
that actually does come to you but like staples right we have a giant city
Staples contract right everyone uses a bunch of different funding sources to
pull on that one piece of contract authority and it's actually at this time
that you spend against the authority that the funding codes the budgetary
controls attach that's where you would see that again a contract can be
operating over multiple years you could have a 250 thousand dollar contract for
five different years and so you may only have a fifty thousand dollar line
authority and again it could be split over course of multiple funding sources
We're not able to use that
vendor to provide services.
In some departments and these
typically would come to you I
would note like planning and
building and fire have on call
contractors where it's not
necessarily identified on the
front side that you're going to
fund the contract and so the
source may vary depending on
how they're going to use that
vendor to provide the services.
So in these particular points
what we're noting is what's
awarded.
I agree that we should be able
note the limitation of what you're seeing here.
I see, and I guess, yeah, that was gonna be my next question
that what is possible for when we get this report again?
Like could there be another column that,
so we see agreed upon amount, and then could there be
another column that states like how much was spent
and also the fund number?
Definitely, we can provide that information.
Okay, perfect.
I think just to be clear, it will probably be
in a different format.
I will see, I wanna appreciate that our
purchase and contract administrator said
that it's available.
I just wanna be cautious given our financial systems
that we may be providing that in a different format
in order for that to actually be true.
I'm really concerned whenever we bring something to you
that it has the right data integrity
that we're not making and for instance,
it's not associated in true.
One of my concerns is when we bring up
the contract authority from one contract,
You may pick the circumstance.
We may have entered into, in this fiscal year,
or sorry, the 25, 26 fiscal year,
a contract with a vendor that we're then paying against
in the next year, but then have done a new solicitation for
that same vendor in the same year.
And so what's governing that is actually like
the particular contract award number.
But what you might see out of Oracle is the vendor number.
And I just wanted to make sure
that we could end up in a space
where actually what we're
representing is the spent amount
in one year is not actually
against that contract authority.
Again, I just want to caution
you.
We'll look to provide whatever
we can, but just the data is not
super useful out of Oracle.
I just want to be clear.
But we'll look to develop
whatever we can to provide
additional information.
Thank you.
Councilmember Wong.
Thank you, and thank you for
preparing this report.
I have two questions.
departments that procurement is a bottleneck that there are a lot of
challenges in procurement. I'd love to know what exactly is happening and how
council can be supported that way because you all are such a central
function that when there are issues with procurement this affects everybody
across the city. The second thing that I did want to ask about was just I think
I think around the racial disparity study in contracting,
I apologize, I forgot the study author,
but she had noted, actually,
that in some of our smaller contracts,
where there's actually the most opportunity
to actually close the gaps in our racial disparities,
that we continue to see those gaps, maybe even more so.
In fact, I think her quote in this,
Dr. Ramsey, that's her name.
She actually noted where oversight is weakest,
we see the most racial disparities.
And I was wondering,
can you speak to what work your office is doing
to close those gaps in disparities
when it comes to these smaller contracts?
Thank you.
Sure.
Through the chair, council,
I will share to address your first question,
as far as issues with the procurement process,
how long we're going to be
running out of time.
We, in finance, we are the
safeguard to ensure the city is
procuring these contracts
properly.
We are working with the
department to identify their
needs sooner versus later.
Oftentimes we are put between a
rock and a hard place with these
departments identifying an
immediate need for services in
which it would possibly require
them coming to council for a
competitive waiver.
including local small local participants to be engaged with
solicitation. So we've identified anticipated expiring contracts and we're
working with the departments to identify their immediate needs whether they will
be extending services whether they're going to be doing new solicitations or
if they're going to be sunsetting those services and so we're taking a more
active approach in helping the department strategize better for future
engagement and that way we have the resources identified on our team mind
you we are a very very small team servicing the entire city we are working
on recruitment efforts to staff our team appropriately of course that will take
time we are working with the city leadership with contracting efforts to
improve as part of the strategic improvement plan and that also addresses
this is your second question.
We're working with Monica leading this effort,
excuse me, your formal title, I apologize.
I do want to share that we are working collaboratively
with city administration leadership
to identify the race and equity issues,
local, small, local opportunities.
We do have a representative from DRE on our team.
And so we are collaborating,
we are well aware of the issues
and we're working to shorten that gap.
total size of your team? So on the contract administration team I have one
supervisor. I have two season management assistants. I just hired a new
management assistant and I have four administrative analysts twos. So a size
of seven. Seven plus a supervisor. On the purchasing side I have one supervisor
the entire city. And the entire.
is that we're not serving and need more additional staffing.
I would note you have another item on this agenda
that will be a little bit meta when we get to it
because of the conversations we're having,
which is around improving our process.
If we don't think through how we approve what we do,
the process is our software, our structures,
throwing bodies at the problem
while it can help won't necessarily fully ameliorate
in an efficient way the problem set that we're dealing with.
really holding both me and the city administrator because she's tough enough
to talk to all of us accountable for ensuring that the rules and regulations
that you have established as a body are adhered to. One of the reasons why we're
seeing some of those delays is we're not exempting things. We're not making
exceptions. The rules that you guys establish are here. As an example, the
meta report we're going to talk about later is coming from Laura's
And so as an example of that
matter report we're going to
talk about later is coming from
Laura shop for my department
for a waiver in this particular
case actually under two fifty
it's that exact kind of
situation where would be under
the authorities if not for the
fact that we were waving at in
the past I will say prior in my
my prior time with the city I
have seen sort of these things
slipped through and they're not
slipping through now they're
coming to you if they require
that is if they're it's
required to do that sometimes
that's delayed sometimes that's
departments back and saying no, no, no, you have to go through the full process and so
that's part of the challenge we're doing is culture change. Your rules are what
they are, we have to adhere to them and that's a lot of wire. I think we're
feeling that tension. We need to make it easier for the departments systemically
and structurally to comply, though. That is a key thing that we need to look at.
Thank you. A couple of quick questions. I have a number of things bookmarked on
questions about specific ones but I won't go through all of them today but
as an example there's two that I'm hopefully will highlight more of what
this process is. So on page 61 there is a contract with EMC Research for polling
for $244,000. Now this is a small local business I understand so it didn't need
to come to council, but did council authorize polling services for finance,
or where does this come from? Brittany Hines, Assistant to the Finance
Director, yes we did come to council for the polling contract that was done I
want to say two years ago before I took leave, it was to do some polling on
potential revenue generating ballot measures. We actually did not utilize
that contract at the time and then obviously I took leave and we're back and
we I think our contract expires next year. Council, sorry, to the chair, this is a
good example of a contract effort that doesn't necessarily, hasn't had any
spending against it. This was a preemptive thing that we did in advance
of the possibility of doing a revenue measure so that we have services
available. We haven't spent against any of this authority and I know that's
actually it's a big sort of it's been a topical question that like we use this
in advance of like measure E which was on the ballot no we didn't we have
contract authority as I mentioned earlier we have not spent against this
authority but should the council wish to look at putting a measure on the ballot
what we have pre gone and done is done a competitive bidding process and
selected a local firm that's available should we find both appropriations and
an interest to go do that in advance
of a coming election cycle.
And actually, that's a best practice for us.
We should often, as departments, go and look
at what our future needs may be so that we can go
and procure those services and have the instruments
ready to go in an emergency or if it's urgent and necessary.
Because the procurement process can be a six month process
if we're thinking in advance of what we might need
and we have a vendor ready to go,
when this body or when a department with its own resources
finds a need that might be urgent or emergent,
they can actually have a vehicle to go do it.
And again, this one was done properly
in the sense that we were able to select a local vendor
through a competitive process
because we had the time to do it.
Okay, got it.
So in next year's report,
I think it would be helpful to know
how much of the contract was utilized
because it is a little surprising
when we don't know about what polling went on.
And I'm glad there was none for $244,000.
The second question is, and I know this contract
because I was involved in approving the budget allotment
towards it, is on page 28.
There's a Laurel Safety Ambassador grant
from December 1st, 2024 for $200,000.
And that's the only LDA Laurel Ambassador Program funding
see here, I know that was passed in the budget and I'm certain there was a
resolution approving it afterwards, as well that came from EWD, but I don't see
the amounts that were given in 2023 as well as in 2025. I know they haven't got
their approved amount for 2026 yet, but why is one here and others not? And if you
need EWD to answer the question, I would still appreciate that by email or
something but I know there's been multiple approvals but only one is
listed here. I can share that it's possible that a contract authority has
been approved but the contract has yet to be executed so that's possible. I
would defer to EWD and we can follow up an email just to confirm. I can assure
you the contracts was executed because I've met and seen the safety
investors they got paid retroactively but for in my four years of being here
so far almost there have been three or four contracts and only ones listed here
and they absolutely were executed we saw them we know the money was eventually
spent down and I do want to share so we are pulling data from two different
sources so if a contract is executed leveraging the work order portal it's
it's possible that it's not reporting in Oracle
because a purchase order has yet to be executed.
So a contract purchase order is subsequent
to an execution of a contract.
So that's possible, but we will definitely follow up.
Thank you.
And my last question is like broader trends.
It seems like spending has,
from the city administrator's authority has gone down,
but can you explain why the number was close
to $24 million in both $23.24 and $24.25,
but drop down to about half of that in $25.26.
It could be based on the department's needs.
Perhaps they don't have allocated funding
to support professional service agreements.
It could be that projects have concluded.
It could be for a variety of reasons.
In the next report, we could survey the departments
in advance and provide some information
we're asking that we be able to
make sure there is a commitment
as it relates to the dollar
amounts being reported out.
To the chair for clarity and
will definitely follow up with
the W. D. if you as a body
approved a resolution with grant
authority it wouldn't show up
here because it's not under the
city of ministry's authority so
that's not the mechanism that
was used so it may be that this
bid was done via a resolution or
Grant agreements, we took in a big rezzo
for things like EDIN and INR,
and that maybe Laurel was captured there.
So if you approved it in block as a grant authority,
a grant agreement, or through another mechanism
as a council body, it wouldn't show up
as a city administrator authority body.
And so it may just be that that is the only allocation
to that bid that was done
with the city administrators authority,
but the others were done via another mechanism.
But we'll follow up and get you
what the other allocations are.
would appreciate that because just looking through this there's things that
I recognize that council has approved so I'm like is this above and beyond that
and it's not this is just the one I have the most personal involvement and in
this grant but I don't know what is approved from council versus what is
approved from the city administrator on their own and there's there's many other
items as well that I'm like this came to council so yeah and then several of
course that didn't. But I will we can move on unless any colleagues of other
comments to public speakers. Calling in the names that sign up to speak on item
number three in no particular order you can come up to the podium. State your
name for the record before you begin. Kevin Dahle, Blair Beekman, and Mrs.
Asada-Olavala. Hi, Kevin Dahle. I'm gonna just discuss process and not the
contents of the report. Council has trouble making tracking annual reports.
Fortunately they have something called the pending list and under the pending
list there's annual reports. Good news is this item was listed under annual
reports for Finance Committee and it says that the report was given February
24, 20, 26. So I'm a little bit confused. Was the report given or not given? And why
is it difficult now? It used to be the pending lists. I could click on the rules agenda and
look at the pending lists. I tried doing that. I admit my phone's not the best method at
looking at giant documents, but I couldn't find the pending list. I had to do a search.
So the pending list I'm looking at was revised, it says September 22nd is the date.
I think the council needs to do a better job at tracking pending lists, and I think that's
up to both the Rules Committee, the chair of the Rules Committee, and probably the chair
of each individual committee, because it shouldn't be, yeah, staff should handle it, but the
council we have churn different people get elected every four years council
needs a way of tracking items from year to year that they only get once a year
thanks and I will just state for the record not in response to anything my
staff can connect with you where it is called outstanding but there are a number
of outstanding items at the top of each agenda in the item determination of schedule of outstanding
committee items including quarterly and annual reports. Ms. Asada thank you.
So this is an informational report and based on that there is no opportunity
for corrective action to be taken by this body relative to any circumstances of incorrect
information or need for change. So this is just an informational report. What
upsets me the most is the opportunity to present information correctly. So the
resolution says that you are on a semi-annual basis this report should be
given. They purposely didn't put that language in there. Semi-annual report
because they wanted to avoid dealing with what you brought up, Ms. Ramachand.
So when you do that kind of work, it makes me very uncomfortable with the
possibility of trusting the report. So within the report, there are a couple of
concerns. Head start, no amount given for Head Start 8123. OPD protective
So I'm going to go on to.
And I'm going to give a parrot.
I don't think you identify $250,000.
I don't know if that needs to go to privacy commission.
That's militarized equipment.
7-1-23, Feather River Camp.
Always concerned about how y'all give money
to some of these non-profits.
7-3-23, on-call economic consultant, what is that about?
One dollar and you have that again one dollar for citywide vending services
support with the mayor for the mayor
public-private partnerships
$49,000
Special advisor to the mayor eighty-nine thousand dollars
EWDD two hundred thousand dollars you don't say for what?
Thank you for your comments, Miss Olibala
Blair Beekman, I don't see a timer. Oh there there's oh and thank you there's two minutes Wow
Thank you that we can speak for two minutes on this item
Hi, everyone Blair Beekman
I'm traveling to Southeast Asia next week right up the election
So I wanted to stop by here and say hi before I get going
I wish I was at the zoom meetings here earlier this month. I'm really sorry. I wasn't
My brain is not there so but I just want to be around what you guys have been working on this fall
and this ties directly into the upcoming election process about the how you're going to address
the future of strong mayor issues and an IBA coordinator. And I imagine this item has been
brought here in realm of that, in thinking of that, how you're going to be developing better
organizational skills here, and this is a way to do it. I'm fearful still that this is just kind of
evolved out of the ether and that San Diego where I'm from currently I mean
they just got down to the Fairfax and rehired a office an officer of
operations services coordinator like it's called the Oh COO and chief
operated operations officer it coordinates all the role of organizers
city government practices in the strong mayor system and you guys are going to
be relying on the IBA to do this and it's going to be a soft approach and
you're going to have to be trusting each other and what Kevin mentioned you
can counsel has to take these reports and organize them more clearly you have
to do a lot of organization between yourselves a COO offers a bit more
straight organizational leadership in how to address this in the future that
You may have to rely on and how you vote if you approve the IBA this fall for the items like this. Thank you
Thank you for your comment. Sure. That concludes all speakers on this item
and
It's a department as the request to receive and file
The parliamentarian is advising that this should be forwarded to the full council. I
Will make a motion to forward this to the full council at our next regular meeting
second
Thank you. We have a motion made by chair Ramachandran seconded by councilmember Brown to receive and forward this item to the
November 10th special City Council agenda
unroll council members Brown. Hi Unger. Hi Wong
Hi and chair Ramachandran. I thank you motion passes with four eyes support this to the November 10th
Special City Council agenda and to the maker of the motion is that on consent consent. Thank you on consent
Now reading in item number four
receive an informational report on citywide staffing from the city administrator regarding citywide vacancy rates and status of
Earth and status as of September 15 2026 budgeted vacancy rate for fiscal year 2026 27 the vacancy rates of
regional local public entities
recruitment outreach and community engagement and the analysis of the city workforce and recruitment conditions and there are three speakers that signed up to
speak on this item. Good morning chair and committee members my name is Elaine
Reyes I'm a supervising personnel operations analyst in the employment
operations services division formerly known as the recruitment and
classification division of the human resources management department. Today I'll
provide an overview of the citywide staffing report as of September 15th
2026. Over the past several years HRM has prepared reports analyzing vacancies
across the departments and examining keys, gassing factors, including recruitment improvements,
employee retention, and workforce tenure. Today's presentation will review key findings
from the report, including a comparison with the February 2026 report to show how vacancy
statuses have changed and outline HRM's ongoing efforts to support recruitment and help departments
address vacancies. Before reviewing the data, I'd like to clarify how a vacancy is defined
for the purpose of this report.
For this report, vacancies are defined
as non-encumbered and unfrozen positions.
Non-encumbered positions are available to be filled
and are not being used for another staffing purpose.
Encumbered positions, on the other hand,
are not available to be filled
because they are being used for overtime,
temporary staffing, underfills, or acting assignments.
Enfrozen positions are budgeted positions
that are not currently available to be filled.
This is a snapshot of the vacancy status
of all vacant positions as of September 15th.
Thank you.
Just keep going.
Okay, of the total vacancies, 0.1% is on hold
down from 1% in February.
23% have an eligible list available,
but a requisition has not been submitted.
This is up from 14%.
This means HRM created an eligible list
which contains candidates who have qualified
through the recruitment process
and are available for consideration.
However, the department has not yet submitted a requisition
to begin the hiring process.
In response to concerns raised in the last report
about eligible lists expiring before use,
in June, HRM extended the list expiration dates
to give departments more time to fill vacancies.
As of September 15th,
there were 306 active eligible lists available for use.
About 24% do not have a requisition submitted
by a department, down from 36%.
Without a submitted requisition,
the process to fill these vacancies cannot move forward.
Combine these categories account for 47.2%
or 368 vacancies with no recruitment activity.
That's down from 431 or 51% in February,
a decrease of 63 vacancies.
About 25% of the total vacancies are currently
in the hiring process to be filled.
Departments are either in the interview process
or have identified a candidate.
This is up from 23% in February.
HRM is currently working to fill about 23% of the total vacancies, this is an increase
from 20% when last reported in February.
This includes 5% pending HR analyst assignment, 12% in active recruitment, and about 6% related
to class specifications and title changes.
I'll just catch up here.
There have been several staffing updates in the EOS division since February, seven employees
resigned, some to pursue opportunities outside of the city and others to accept promotional
opportunities within the City. During the same period, the Division onboarded
eight new employees. Additionally, since September 15th, one principal HR analyst
has resigned and left the City, and one assistant HR analyst has been hired. The
team has adjusted workflows and redistributed assignments to maintain
recruitment and classification services. As of September 15th, the City's vacancy
rate decreased from 19.69% in February to 17.89%, a reduction of 1.8 percentage points.
During this period, total full-time equivalent FTE positions, which includes both full-time
and part-time positions, increased by approximately 30, while vacancies decreased by about 71.
With that context, let's look at how these figures compare with historical data.
This chart shows the historical vacancy rates since October 2021.
Over the last five years, the vacancy rate has fluctuated.
At 17.89%, the September rate is the lowest among the reporting periods shown, slightly
below the previous low of 17.94% in April of 2025.
The vacancy data was analyzed in several ways, including by department.
The next couple of slides break down vacancy rates for each department, along with the
delta showing the change since the February report. Red figures indicate
departments where vacancy rates increased. One thing to keep in mind is
that some departments had positions added to their budgets which may have
contributed to an increase in their vacancy rates. For example, the city
auditor's office added four FTE increasing its staffing level to 12.
With four vacancies, its rate rose to 33% up from 11% in February. This
This illustrates how adding positions to a department's budget can affect its vacancy
rate.
Additionally, the Department of Race and Equity added one FTE that remains unfilled, increasing
its total positions from three to four and bringing its vacancy rate to 25%.
Because this is a small department, even one additional vacancy can have a significant
impact on its vacancy rate.
This table shows the vacancy rate for each of the six unions with which the city has
a Memorandum of Understanding or MOU.
IBEW has the highest vacancy rate at 33 percent, however, as the previous example, the increase
in budgeted positions from 17 to 21 FTE contributes to the higher rate.
Local 21 has the highest number of vacancies, however, this is down from 350 in February.
Within each MOU for each union, there may be multiple bargaining units.
This table shows the eight bargaining units with the vacancy rates of 20 percent or higher.
We reviewed five years of data for these bargaining units that had at least one active vacancy.
This table shows the number of applications received and the average time to hire across
two stages.
To ensure accurate time to hire reporting, only recruitments with complete data for both
stages were included.
HRM is responsible for stage one, which begins when a job announcement is posted and ends
when an eligible list is created.
HRM's goal is to complete the stage within 120 days.
are responsible for stage two, which begins when a candidate is referred and ends when a hire is made.
HRM's goal is for hiring departments to complete the stage within 60 days. For more information on
the hiring workflow, attachment B of the report illustrates the complete hiring process, including
both stages, key steps, and transfer of responsibility between steps. Looking at
separations over the past 10 years, total separations declined from 380 and FY2425 to
three twenty two and FY twenty five twenty six a decrease of approximately fifteen percent this decline was reflected all across all
categories resignations retirement and other separation this table shown here summarizes all citywide employee movement across
fiscal years since FY twenty three twenty four including position changes such as transfers and promotions new hires and employee
separations. During this period the city recorded 1,693 new hires and 1,697
separations resulting in a net difference of four or more I'm sorry four
more separations than hires. While HRM continues its efforts to fill vacant
positions these figures highlight the ongoing challenge maintaining workforce
levels. We collected updated vacancy rate data from our regional comparator
jurisdictions. Since February Oakland's vacancy rate has remained most
comparable to those of Hayward and Richmond. In summary, HRM continues to
strengthen hiring and retention through the following efforts, expand recruitment
outreach through career fairs and community events to increase awareness
of city job opportunities and reach a broader pool of applicants, increase the
visibility and accessibility of city careers through the city's website and
social media platforms, helping candidates navigate job opportunities
to the city and the community
and the recruitment process.
Support internal career growth
through initiatives such as the
coached interviews program to
prepare employees for promotional
opportunities and strengthen
onboarding with the return of
in-person new employee
orientation in 2027 to provide
a solid foundation to the city's
culture, values, mission and
development opportunities.
Together these efforts support
HRM's commitment to building a
qualified workforce, promoting
career growth and supporting the
make sure all of the public
safety is in place.
This concludes the presentation
and at this time I would like
to open it up for any questions.
Thank you.
We will go to councilmember
Unger and then Wong.
Thanks for the report.
Am I correct in understanding
that we established a separate
carve out hiring for public
safety to prioritize public
safety?
Correct, yes.
Our recruitment team has a public
safety team.
And how is that going?
We filled our very last
Yesterday great and then for other positions, how do we prioritize what rises to the top of your list to work on?
Good morning through the chair amber Lidle HR manager
It's a combination of working with the departments to identify their priorities as well as looking at the impact citywide on
The consequence of not filling those positions
So there's no formal like ranking you decide or the department's we work with the departments and they give us their priorities
And I assume every department thinks that their position is the most important one.
So how do you determine between them?
So our analysts are divided between the different departments and we focus on the needs of each
of those departments.
Okay.
And what would you say are the largest hurdles to hiring right now?
I mean, last time when we talked, I think you said that a lot of paperwork got stuck
within the departments and that you were going to sort of get people together and try to
figure out how to surmount those roadblocks.
Has that been successful?
Yes and no.
We have definitely been increasing our meetings
with our departments.
We have staffed additional positions within our division,
but obviously when you bring in new people,
you have to train them.
So there's a learning curve with all of the new hires,
but we have been increasing the meetings
with the departments, explaining the process.
We do requisition cleanup so that we can identify
what is pending, what is a real requisition, what isn't.
We don't have the best tracking system,
and so utilizing everything that we have
when we meet with those departments
to understand what their true priorities are.
So what would you say is your biggest roadblock
now to swift hiring?
The departmental hiring process,
getting those candidates in, it takes quite a long time.
When there's one position, we get four referrals,
and the departments may go through those very, very fast,
and so it's just a long, drawn-out process.
And do you have ideas for how to speed that up?
Expanded certification rules is one way.
Say that again.
Expanded certification rules.
Explain.
So currently, if there's one position,
you get four referrals, or four ranks, I should say.
And so if they don't hire anybody in those first four,
then they go and they ask for four more.
And it's a process like that.
And they have to do four at a time.
And if those four candidates don't respond,
they're not interested in the job, or they're not selected,
it can take weeks to make the hire.
So you think that expanding that to eight or 10
in the initial round would be helpful?
I do, yeah.
What do you need to make that happen?
Is that something we have to do?
Is that something you can just sort of sign off on?
No, it's updates to civil service rules
as well as agreement with the MOUs.
Okay, and are those discussions
with the labor groups in process?
They are.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Long.
Hi, thank you through the chair.
First, I just wanna appreciate
how thorough these reports always are.
And I know sometimes it doesn't always look great,
but I think it's better to be transparent.
So I just do wanna note that.
One thing I wanted to just hone in on is the HR hiring.
If I recall correctly, last time the HR department
was at a 44% vacancy rate.
Now we're at 34%, so we are seeing progress, which is good.
At the same time, what I recall when we spoke last time,
since I know folks in the community who have an interest
in being an HR analyst, that you said that
you actually had all the HR analysts that you needed.
This is why we weren't seeing current postings
on the O'gov for those positions.
So, but then I'm confused when I see still a 34% vacancy
rate and what are the remaining positions
need to be filled since I don't see those on the Ogov, at least as of a month
ago. Since we've last reported, we have posted assistant HR analysts, senior HR
analysts, principal HR analysts, as well as HR operations supervisor
and HR operations technician. So we have posted them since the last time we were
here on this presentation. Principal is actually open right now, so if you
know anybody interested? Please send them our way. Okay, we will definitely put that
out there and put it on social media, put it on the newsletter, so that's good. The
other thing that I just wanted to flag, it looks like the requisition number that you
had flagged last time as being a significant issue has substantially gone down from in
the 300s to 180. Why is that? And that's, I think, a good thing, I hope, since you flagged
It is a problem have you guys been working on streamlining it have the departments made it more of a focus all of the above
We've been working with our departments to make sure that they're getting them in on time
We've also worked with them to cancel things that they no longer need
So this reflects the true number now of what they actually need and that communication has been great. Okay, great
final question I just have is I noticed that the IBEW like the
pipeline was the longest something around 287 days.
I continue to be concerned around the lack of electricians
that we have in the city because just the issues
around repairing our streetlights, things like that.
Why is there so particularly long?
So that number is actually attributed
to one recruitment process.
It was for the electricians and the biggest hurdle there
was securing assessors to administer the exam.
So for the process, we do utilize assessors
from external agencies and being able to coordinate
in conjunction with the weather,
a panel to serve as the raters took up most of the time.
Okay, assessors for like the civil service.
The actual, yes.
Okay, interesting.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions that are the same questions
that I ask every time this report comes forward.
if we have over 700 vacancies,
why are there only 34 on our city website?
And I know this number of oscillates,
I check almost every day,
because I'm curious what positions are up.
I understand that you're doing a lot more
to start to trip away at this vacancy rate,
but why are more positions not advertised?
Because the number is really between 28 and 35
in any given day on the website.
So one eligible list can be used to fill multiple positions
and as one thing goes live, another thing comes off.
So it really is, it's not a reflection
of what has been opened the entire time
since last time we were here.
It really is focused on the department needs
and being able to prioritize each
of the different recruitments in order.
Thank you.
And can you explain a little bit more
about what you're doing to proactively advertise
these roles in the community?
I know there was the first and only career fair
that I've seen at City Hall in my almost four years here,
which was extremely well attended.
How many more events like that have you planned?
Or what are you doing to reach out to the community
to try to recruit for these jobs?
Because I see, for example, our finance department's
revenue division at fairs and festivals.
I see them, quite frankly, all over the place,
and they're doing an amazing job.
I don't see that with HR, to try to recruit positions,
especially because there's always entry-level positions
that are, whether they're part-time or full-time,
on this list as well.
So Elaine is looking up the number for us,
but since the last time we spoke,
we have been prioritizing attending career fairs.
We actually designated two people within our division
to attend, or to coordinate the fairs.
There's been some weeks when we did three in one week.
So we really have been out there a lot more.
And like I said, we have dedicated people
to be coordinators of those events now.
How many more at City Hall are you planning?
Because my understanding was in years prior,
there were more events at City Hall at the HR offices.
You have beautiful facilities there,
but I don't see anyone there when I think that,
given the number of vacancies there should be.
How many more are you planning in City Hall
or in your HR offices?
We don't currently have one planned.
Well, it'd be great to see that
because that has been a past practice
in the city years ago,
and given how many people came out
to the one earlier this year,
it seems like there'd be a lot of good applicants.
Council Member Brown.
Excellent, thank you so much.
First off, I just wanted to say thank you so much
for the report was super comprehensive.
All the data and the numbers were very helpful.
But I guess just to, I do wanna make sure
that I'm thankful for the HR team
because I have reached out a couple times
with various events that I've been having across the city
where we hosted an LGBTQ plus job fair,
you all were present, we had over 100 people turn out,
And then a couple of my other events,
specifically the one bringing City Hall to East Oakland,
the HR team was there as well.
And so I just really wanted to applaud those efforts.
And that you all have been saying yes a lot.
And so I appreciate that.
And I know that the role is not easy.
So a couple questions that I have,
I guess is on page two of the report.
And this was just out of curiosity.
when we're looking at the field positions
in like the Department of Transportation and Finance,
like are these numbers representative
of the shift and change that was made
in the Finance Department,
like some of the DOT staff transitioning into Finance,
just was curious about those numbers.
I would say likely,
but I would have to dive into each of the positions
to know for sure.
Okay, yeah, I am curious about that
Because I was going to say, wow, finance has a lot of staff.
And so I just was trying to see, are those numbers actually
accurate?
So I would love some follow-up on that, just out
of my curiosity.
And then the other question, I'm not
finding it exactly what page it was.
But when I was reading over this a couple of days ago,
I guess I've been curious about when the tests that are set up.
So you have applicants that apply.
From what I've heard is that for some positions,
you can get over 60 applicants.
But by the time they actually make it to the departments,
some departments may potentially only end up
getting four applicants that are qualified.
And so it's kind of a two-part question.
One, when was the last time we've
updated like these exams and tests that you know folks have to go through and
then are we actually tracking like who who is like is it a automated system
that disqualifies applicants and are we tracking how maybe consistently that
number like decreases? Yes, through the chair. So every application is reviewed
by us. We look at every single application submitted their attachments
to review for the minimum qualifications. And yes, there is drop-offs along the way.
So between when somebody applies versus when the test takes place versus who
passes and who doesn't. So there is an expectation that the number would
would diminish over time.
But as far as once they are sent to the department,
sometimes departments, sometimes an individual
isn't interested in working in a certain department.
And so they might not respond
when the department reaches out.
So one thing that we've done since last time
is we actually give candidates the ability
to say what departments they're interested in
because each candidate only gets four referrals
off of an eligible list.
And so this gives them an opportunity essentially
not to waste their referral
If they know they don't wanna work in a certain department,
we don't have to send that name to the department.
So it speeds up the hiring process for the department,
but it also allows the candidate to remain
on the eligible list longer
to be considered for positions they are interested in.
And then I guess I'm just really curious
about the minimum qualifications.
And do we have a percentage of how many applicants
are not meeting minimum qualifications?
I don't, but that is data that we could get.
Yeah, because I guess some of the feedback
that I've received is that for some of these positions,
we start with a really large number,
and then by the time it makes it to the department,
they only have a couple applicants to consider.
Yeah, and one of the things that we're working on
is updating our minimum qualifications
to make sure that we don't have any artificial barriers.
So that is a huge lift on our team,
because we actually look at every single classification
before we even start the recruitment process
to make sure that we're removing anything
that may be an artificial barrier.
Excellent, and do you have a time frame for that update?
To get that data?
Yeah, well, just in general, you know,
going through and making sure the minimum qualifications
are aligned and et cetera.
So we do that at the start of every recruitment process.
So it's tied to the recruitment.
Okay, awesome, sounds good, thank you.
All right, we will take public speakers.
Calling in the names that sign up to speak on item four,
Asada Olavala, Blair Bikman and Kevin Dalley.
So of course, I'm here, every time I'm here,
I'm basically concerned about the well-being
of fundamental black Americans.
However, under the circumstances of Proposition 209,
you do not have the ability to hire
based on race, gender, nationality.
So you can't take up the cause of making sure
that we have fundamental black Americans
being hired in this city.
You can provide the data though,
and you can provide the data of people
who are still working at home,
because understand you still have that staffing component.
Understand that you have only 32%
of your city employees live in Oakland.
That's a good thing to look at when you're looking
at staffing, how many people live in the city
and how many do not.
I know under the case of the police department,
cannot mandate a certain percentage or any percentage of your employees have to live
in Oakland. You also are required by law that your employees are citizens or are in the
city legally, and you are a sanctuary city. I don't know if you ignore certain things
related to the status of individuals, so I don't know if you're ignoring that. Are you
following the mandate, the federal mandate
and the state mandate, that you have to be
a citizen or here legally.
I'm also concerned about the fact when you do have
an opportunity to look at each department,
whether that department has fully staffed
and there's only one department and it's fully staffed
and that's the mayor's staff.
And the next departments that have the need
for more staffing, the least amount of need
is the counsel, the city attorney's office,
informational tech.
It's funny how up a administration
you get in your staffing.
Kevin Dealy, thanks for the report and the good news.
It looks like things are moving in the right direction.
Of course, I'm excited that there's
parking enforcement hiring going on.
Some people are probably less excited by that,
but also it will include, I think,
the persons being hired any day now,
a dispatch person, so that when I call in
after six years or so, when I call in to report,
someone is blocking, parked in a sidewalk,
or blocking, or parked on a sidewalk,
blocking a crosswalk, that they will actually
dispatch someone to ticket it,
and that will help with the ADA consent decree.
One thing that was mentioned at a past report,
I don't know if there's a way of making this better
that when the HR department,
a list runs out of time.
They send an email to the department to warn them.
But I wonder if it's worth doing a follow-up,
even a phone call if you know there's a long list of people
and possibly the emails slip through the cracks
because some of these people are also getting email
from me and you and everyone else.
When you allow a list to expire,
it means you have to start all over again
and that can delay hiring for months.
But if the hiring department can extend the deadline
for the list that will help them to hire
if they're in the process.
And yeah, we can blame the departments,
but it would be great if HR works a little bit stronger
on double checking that they really wanted
the list to expire.
Thanks.
Hi, Larry Beekman.
I was living in San Jose for the past 10 years,
working all around the Bay Area
to check accountability stuff,
so I'd come here a lot,
and I moved down to San Diego to do the same work
for the past three years.
I've been watching your more recent public meetings.
It's been Love Life Week here in Oakland and thank you.
It's been great to be around that and to see that.
This item, the previous item talks nicely
about organizational ideas that are needed
for Oakland right now and what you're going to do
with the future of an IBA position.
This item, when you're talking about procurement,
and you're talking about Oakland in what you're trying to do,
I think procurement, the love life philosophy
and the work I do with tech accountability
can go a long way with procurement.
And possibly with this item,
to have a set of good organizational ideals.
You've been talking a lot in hiring practices to end the health issues and retirement plans
for City of Oakland workers.
And I think that's an overall bad philosophy.
I think you have to have the idealism that people will want to come to Oakland and feel
more comfortable if they have those sort of fallbacks.
And San Diego's in the same place, they're doing the same thing.
San Diego and Oakland are the two largest cities in California and have very large deficits.
And that's, this is how you're trying to adjust deficit issues.
But it's, I think, quite a bit of the wrong approach.
And you could cut worker salaries by 25 bucks a month, and that can be a good budget savings
as well.
My regular speed.
Thank you for your comments share that concludes all speakers on this item. All right. I will entertain a motion
So moved to
Go on consent is that what you're hoping for
Receive and file or receive and file here, okay
Thank you
We have a motion made by councilmember Unger seconded by councilmember Wong to receive and file this informational report in committee on
on roll, Council Members Brown?
Aye.
Unger?
Aye.
Wong?
Aye.
And Chair Ramachandran?
Aye.
Thank you, item number four passes with four I's
to receive and file this informational report and committee.
Reading in item five, adopt a resolution
authorizing the city administrator
to enter into a cooperative contract agreement
with governmentjobs.com Inc, DBA NeoGov,
for human resources, informational systems,
subscription services for an initial three year period
from July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029
with three one-year extension options
subject to the availability and the term
of source well contract number 030425-PDMS
for a maximum total of six years
in amount not to exceed $3,674,817.80.
And we have three speakers on this item.
Good morning, Chair and committee members.
Amber Lytle, Human Resources Manager,
overseeing Employment Operations Services Division.
I'm here to present on the item,
Authorizing the City to Enter
Into a Cooperative Contract Agreement with NeoGov
for our HRIS subscription services.
This item was previously scheduled for consideration
by the Finance and Management Committee,
but it was pooled to allow staff
to pursue different cooperative contracts
with more favorable pricing.
We've since updated the report
reflect the revised agreement and cost. The city has used Neoga for more than
15 years. The platform supports key HR functions including recruitment,
applicant tracking, onboarding, training, performance management. It's also
integrated with the city's Oracle system. So continuing with Neoga allows us to
maintain our existing systems and workflows while avoiding the cost of an
operational disruption associated with replacing this platform. The agreement
also includes two additional modules funded through the mid-cycle budget,
which are attract to strengthen candidate engagement
and talent pipelines, as well as vetted
to centralized background investigations,
particularly for our public safety recruitment.
We propose obtaining these services
through a sourceable contract,
which was competitively vetted and solicited.
The agreement covers an initial three-year term
through June of 2029,
with three additional one-year extension options.
The initial three-year contract is approximately 1.67 million
with a maximum six-year amount
of approximately 3.67 million,
if all extensions are exercised.
Funding is provided through the department's
internal services funds,
subject to future budget approvals.
Overall, this agreement allows the city
to maintain essential HR technology,
implement additional recruitment
and background investigation tools,
and secure more favorable pricing.
Staff recommends adopting a resolution,
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, colleagues.
Okay, we can move to public speakers.
Calling in the names that sign up to speak on item five,
Mrs. Otto Ollabala, Blair Beekman, and Kevin Dalley.
Okay, so this contract is supposed to start July 1st.
We're in October.
So if you have a contract for July 1st beginning of 2026,
why couldn't staff get it in time
to have the contract approved
before the beginning of the contract?
Now this is about the third or fourth time
I'm seeing this on your agenda.
Oh, y'all looking down, this is serious.
You can't legally do that.
I don't know why you have a city attorney sitting here
when you can approve a contract with a date,
maybe you can pre-approve it, I don't know.
Y'all do so many things.
Now in the languages here, you claim that
This contract will maintain talented and a diverse workforce.
That's a lie.
You cannot, you don't have the ability
to maintain maybe talented,
but you cannot maintain a diverse workforce.
Particularly when you say diversity has to do with women.
You got 600,000 black women who have lost their jobs
in this country, they need jobs.
You can't help us, foundational black women.
So I'm sick and tired of these reports with all of these glorifying what we're going to do
when you know you can't do it, okay?
So you also have with three one-year extensions options.
Why do y'all do this now? You're doing it all the time.
If you want it for six years, put it for six years and validate why you want it.
The extensions mean, does this mean you don't have to come back to council?
Because I don't see that language.
OK.
There's also language about ethnicity in this document.
I don't have time to go into it.
I'll go into it another time.
Because y'all are thoroughly confused
about race and ethnicity.
Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.
I'll try to quickly offer.
I've got to get going.
San Diego is working on this exact same contract,
and they're using the exact same contract negotiations that you guys are, so you're
in the same space if you need to talk to them about things.
I thought this group was a contract that was kind of just standard, regular, bureaucratic.
I don't know if there's any issues going on with this agency
and why you're doing these one-year contracts.
If there is some question about working with this group or not, I don't know that or not,
But something clicked in my brain as this was happening.
Is there an issue?
Ms. Olobolo just mentioned that is there cultural things
that need to be better addressed with this group?
So you're going slow with this group.
I don't know.
But I just thought I'd bring that out here.
If there are kind of a standard bear,
if we're trying to look for a new standard bear for this sort
of effort and work, good luck.
like what that can develop in working towards a better principle, you know, a group to handle
this sort of effort. I know we're trying to do that with the flock things right now, and
is this called for with this agency, this NEOGOV group or whatever they're called in
their bureaucratic procurement process? Good luck, what can develop. I'm not sure if that's
needed for this item, but I thought I would mention it because when this was in San Diego,
It was something was clicking in my brain,
thinking that maybe I should bring it up here.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Sure, that concludes all speakers on item five.
Thank you.
Council Member Brown.
Excellent.
Thank you so much for the report.
I only have one question actually.
So looking at the chart where it has like
the biddle tests, proctoring, and then like an online test,
are those new services that we're adding on to this?
that we've already had in place.
Okay.
And is that in alignment with the other question
that I was asking around like,
or is this more related to like the trainings
that are done through NeoGov?
So those are the platforms that allow us
to do the multiple choice exams on the computer
versus having to hand score scandrons.
Okay, got you.
Okay, sounds good.
I'll make a motion to move this item
to the full city council.
Thank you.
Second.
Thank you.
We have a motion made by council member Brown,
seconded by council member Unger.
Sorry, to approve the recommendations of staff
and to forward this item to the November 10th
special city council agenda.
On roll, council members Brown.
Aye.
Unger.
Aye.
Wong.
Aye.
And Chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
Thank you.
Motion passes with four ayes to forward this item
to the November 10th city council agenda on consent.
Reading in item number six adopted resolution authorizing the city
administrator or designee to enter into a professional services agreement with
Baker Tilly Advisory Group LP to provide procurement purchasing and contract
enhancement implementation services in an amount not to exceed two hundred
forty nine thousand dollars and waive the city's competitive requests for
proposal qualification requirements under Oakland Municipal Code section two
five point b is two point zero
four point zero five point b
and the local small local
business enterprise
requirements.
And we have three speakers on
this item.
Thank you.
Good afternoon or good morning
chair and members of the
financing management committee
members of the public.
My name is Brittany Hines
assistant to the finance
director.
But for you today is a
resolution requesting the
professional services agreement
the 2024 purchasing and contracting review report.
Now as a bit of background,
the city previously engaged with Baker Tilly
who provided some evaluation
and purchasing and contracting practices
with a focus on improving efficiency,
strengthening accountability, contracting equity,
and the assessment resulted in 24 recommendations
across three primary areas.
those areas include policies, procedures,
organizational structure, as well as contracting equity.
Now the report found that the city's purchasing
and contracting requirements are quite complex, frankly,
and spread across multiple departments
and often are difficult for both staff
and vendors alike to navigate.
So those specific recommendations include
modernizing purchasing policies to today's standards.
Also streamlining contracting requirements
and improving cross-departmental coordination,
a centralized tracking database
and also strengthening staff training.
Now an important aspect of component of this work
is the contracting equity.
The report found that many of our existing requirements,
although well-intentioned, can unintentionally create barriers
for small and local businesses.
The recommendations include simplifying contracting
requirements which aim to increase participation
and the city's local and small local business enterprise
and expands supplier diversity.
To my knowledge, the Department of Workforce
and Employment Standards is currently working
on this effort alongside our purchasing division
as they roll out a new software called Ethereum.
And the goal is that we have many small businesses
that are in Oakland, but that have not yet been certified
as local and small local business enterprises.
contracting and purchasing teams have worked diligently with the city's
existing policies and staffing levels and are available resources but many of
the challenges identified in this report are systemic. Our teams have done their
best to navigate these requirements while supporting city departments and
maintain compliance but are excited and ready to implement these improvements
as well as in rolling out authorium the new contract software as well. But
The technology alone will not allow for us to resolve our broader challenges identified
in this assessment, and the critical need to improve our policies, procedures, and organizational
coordination and overall contracting work flow are still really necessary.
The proposed agreement is intended to help move the recommendations into implementations
rather than just recommendations on paper.
Our Baker Tilly will provide technical expertise and support as we evaluate and make necessary
changes to improve the city's purchasing and contracting processes. And this is a direct
alignment with our strategic action plan and we're really excited about rolling out this
next phase. So ultimately our objective is to reduce unnecessary administrative delays,
improve consistency and accountability, and expand contracting opportunities for our small
Oakland businesses while continuing to support our staff and be responsible for carrying
out this work. With that, the staff respectfully request that the committee force this item
into the full city council with a recommendation
for approval.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those
as well as our administrator
for the Procurement Contracts and Division.
Thank you.
Council Member Wong.
Oh, I don't have a question.
Just thank you so much for your work on this.
So yeah, I think my main thing which you just answered is
how are we moving this into implementation?
But that is the exact purpose of this.
So thank you, that's great.
Great.
We can move to public speakers.
Calling in the names I signed up to speak on item six,
Mrs. Soto-Olibala, Kevin Dowley, and Blair Beekman.
Of course, this is an excellent way to move forward
with improving your city's purchasing
and contracting process.
It's very important that in the final analysis,
the fiscal impact statement will be given.
It's gonna be a cost, of course.
and whether we can facilitate implementation
based on that cost factor.
We also, will this include the city administration's
ability to spend up to $250,000?
Will that be evaluated or related to purchasing
and contracting that process?
Lastly, would you be able to include equity
along the lines of race equity?
I'm going to ask the questions because the equity that you discuss in the report has
to do with local and small business equity.
Will you have to include not only cost but will the report allow for increased staffing
in any areas to facilitate these improvements?
Do I have some time left?
Oh, yeah.
I got to go back to this insanity of that last thing y'all were on.
Because the last thing you were on, you had a breakdown of supposedly ethnicity.
Black is not an ethnicity, black is a race.
African Americans is an ethnicity, and you report.
But if you're going to have black and all the ethnicity groups in black, that would
be Caribbeans, that would be Haitians, that would be Latinos, and so forth.
I don't know how y'all got this.
got in that last report white European and Caucasian now what's the difference
between white and Caucasian okay European people are ethnic group white
is a race Caucasian is a race then you have Asian Asian American and Filipino
thank you chair that concludes I'll speak oh sorry I have mr. Beekman on
soon mr. Beekman you can unmute yourself and begin your comments all right thank
thank you, you saw my hand, really nice of you. I was just, I had to be stepping outside,
I've got other stuff I've got to be doing to get ready to go my trip. And just to again
remind the importance of idealism in how to organize ourselves. And Oakland's love life
philosophy, good tech accountability idealism can be important concepts in procurement and
procurement process and how we develop our decision making and an organization.
You're asking all those questions at this time and you have a good ideal system in place, idealism
system in place of Oakland Love Life and things like tech accountability and all its best practices
it offers. That's how we develop our best procurement practices as a community. So I just
wanted to remind yourself of those things and thanks for your time.
Thank you for your comments, Chair that concludes all speakers on this item.
All right I will entertain a motion. So moved.
Thank you that's a motion made by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council
Member Wong to approve the recommendations of staff and support
with this item to the November 10th Special City Council agenda.
On roll Council Members Brown. Aye. Unger. Aye. Wong. Aye. And Chair Ramachandran.
I thank you item 6 passes with 4 eyes to
To forward this item to the November 10th Special City Council agenda on consent
Reading in item number 7 adopt an ordinance
Authorizing the borrowing of funds and the issuance and sale of remaining general obligation
Sorry general obligation bonds
For measure DD measure KK and measure you and we have three speakers on this item
the Treasury Bureau. Before you, this morning is an ordinance authorizing the borrowing
of funds and the issuance and the sale of the remaining general obligation bonds for
measure DD, measure KK, as well as measure U. This ordinance is actually going to kind
of be like a blanket where it's going to authorize us to issue the remainder of the $532 million
balance across all three measures, but for each issuance over the next
several years, we will still be bringing to documents, resolutions, and things
like that. Our next issuance is planned for this March of a paramount not to
exceed two hundred and seventy-five million dollars, and the first reading
of this particular ordinance, we need for this to go to Council on December
first as November 10th is a special meeting and outside bond council is
recommended that this go to a regular council meeting and I'm available for
any questions. Thank you. So to clarify this is the precursor to all of
understood. Last time around we sold more bonds why is it only the
anticipated amount to 75? This is the need from the different departments so
the last time the power amount was about 334 million.
Plus, we have to keep in mind that we have time constraints
for the tax exempt bonds that we need to spend those proceeds
within three years, not to be in violation
of any particular securities laws.
So you'll see issuances fluctuate based upon needs
from Public Works, DOT, as well as housing.
Thank you.
So I have, I seen the report that there's about 35 million
remaining under measure DD, 32 and a half million
under KK, 463 million under U, which is 530 something million.
If we're gonna go in for 275 million next year,
what's the plan for the, to spend down the,
well to issue bonds for the remaining 532.
Right. Within another year, year and a half, thereabouts, once again, it's going to be based upon the needs of the departments,
how quickly they can spend these particular proceeds, and how quickly they can fire up projects that need to be financed.
Understood. And for KK specifically, since that's the predecessor of you,
I'm going to assume that all of those are going to be met in this upcoming bond issue?
We're working on that right now.
So when we bring the resolutions to you, you'll see the breakout of all of that.
This particular ordinance is basically exactly what you just said.
It's a precursor to what's coming.
Great.
Director Johnson.
To give you a little bit of anticipation of what the next several years of bonding will
look like, when we talk about our general obligation bond measures, there are carve-outs
for specific kinds of projects.
So the biggest sets are transportation and housing,
sort of the biggest two sets.
I fully expect by the time we get through the next biennial,
we will have exhausted those resources.
I think that's pretty clear on our trajectory
that we will have fully allocated those resources.
Within the public works subset,
as David mentioned just now,
we do have to spend those proceeds within three years.
And so we have to have projects that are ready to go
for spend within three years.
And because those measures have specific carve-outs
for different kinds of projects,
you can see one category lag depending on availability,
while the other ones move faster.
So as an example, within the public workspace,
I fully expect us to also have allocated our full park set.
But I don't expect, for instance,
to have used our full authorization for police facilities.
And so you may still have a little bit of authorization
hanging out there, for example, Measure KK,
even the prior measure related to police facilities.
but you might have spent down all of your parks money,
all of your transportation money,
all of your housing money.
And so that would inform what you might go forward with
in terms of future authorization in the next measure set.
So it is a little bit parsed out,
but I do expect the vast majority of these to be used
over the course of the next biennial budget.
Great, and I completely understand
that some categories can be used
and executed faster than others,
but if we are to go to voters once again
for an ex-iteration of KK and you.
It would be ideal to spend down KK money first
for whatever those projects are allocated for
so we can show that this has been used, spent,
and we need more, not just for one department or the other.
Councilman.
That is correct.
Councilman Bronger.
Oh, sorry, your thing was up.
Okay.
We can then move to public speakers.
calling in the names that sign up to speak on item seven missus out all the
ball a kevin dally and blare beakman
go to the board and said you spent the money
you have to demonstrate that you have spent it in a fair and equitable way
and that's demonstration is currently not
being seen
i'll give you an example
the hoover demand library
has been on the books for
uh... renewing or rebuilding
for over 20 years and nothing has happened.
But you can fund it.
You've got the building,
you don't have access to the parking lot.
But you did go, Ms. Wong,
with your friends of the Lincoln Park Recreational Center
committing to pay for something
and then the city decides out of the clear,
well, we're gonna pay for it,
or some of it, 32 million dollars.
That's not fair.
That's not a fair process.
Same thing with the parks here.
You can refurbish the parks and clean them up.
But if they're not being used,
you have to use money to implement programs
that incentivize people to come to the parks.
We got so many empty parks with nothing going on.
So to just invest in something that nothing is happening
at these parks is a waste of money.
Then you have prioritization.
You identify eight areas where the remaining money
is going to be used, but no specifics of how,
just generalizations.
Is anything being left out under measures
that are being identified here?
I am so upset of how you pay favoritism to nonprofits,
how you pay favoritism to certain neighborhoods,
how you pay favoritism to certain groups in this city.
You can't go to the voters unless you are fair
and equitable with distribution of funding,
and you're not.
Kevin Daly, thank you for moving ahead
with selling the bonds.
I want to recognize the help,
the work that Deborah Edgerly has done
getting bonds sold out about a year ago
Before then, we had a year where bonds were not sold,
street paving was not happening,
and people were getting injured and dying.
The paving is moving forward now with the sales,
and we are getting as much as possible street safety
along with that paving.
I'm hoping that if there's a future decision
by the finance department or city administrator
to not sell a year's worth of bonds,
that the debt city administrator and finance department
will come formally to the council
to announce a decision to skip bonds.
Last time it was sort of just not sold
and not really discussed on why it wasn't being sold.
And I know there's reasons historically,
but let's keep it out in the open
if there's a change in decisions on not selling bonds.
Thank you for moving this forward.
Switching to Zoom user Blair Beekman.
You can unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hi, I'm Blair Beekman.
Just try to quickly offer, I'm at the BART station.
That BART's gonna be wrong through here.
Good luck to speak on how the bonds are used.
Good luck with affordable housing ideas
that middle income housing doesn't have to be seen
as a total enemy as it is these days, Natalie.
It's kind of, it's got a good program and some good ideas.
Good luck how we can be considering
middle income housing development, that can be okay.
Of course, there's always truly affordable houses
that absolute price,
how we consider our affordable housing issues.
And I also wanted to comment on the park issues
that another mention of San Diego
when Trump first took office.
Looks like we lost Mr. Beekman.
So Chair that concludes all speakers on this item.
Thank you.
I will entertain a motion to move this
to the next regular council meeting in December.
That's it.
Non consent.
Non consent.
Yes.
Yes and I'd also like to pass along
a special thanks to former city administrator
edgily on spearheading us through the last issuance
last December, so her experience was very vital in that particular transaction.
I look to work with her closely on the next issuance for this March as well.
Thank you.
I will make the motion to move to the December 1st meeting on non-content.
I will second that.
I do have one question I want to ask before we move to the vote.
This is just on the Estuary Park and Measure DD.
So I was actually wondering why did we land on $6 million
for the bond issuance amount?
I noticed that there's $32 million remaining,
Measure KK, for example,
also has $32 million remaining,
but we're issuing $12.7 million.
I just wonder because I do get questions from,
Estuary Park is in the district that I represent.
and that's one of the.
I think we're going to have to
get questions around like.
How are we moving forward with
the redevelopment how was this
going and I know some of that
has been stalled so just.
Would like to know how that.
I'll let that director Johnson
now we're in on this okay.
Through the chair the council
member Wong as relates to the
K. can you allocations there is
we are effectively at full
allocation of all parks
projects so there's not well
there's additional capacity as
implementation and there are plans for the full utilization
of DD, just because it's not being issued right now
doesn't mean there isn't a planned item for it.
The big thing is, as administrator Jones mentioned,
is when we sell them, we have three years to spend.
So if they're still developing a planning process
and something, it may be actually a high priority thing,
but we're not going to issue until we're relatively sure
we're ready to go shovels in the ground on spending
because of that three year window.
But there may be a plan.
That's very helpful.
All right, I'll second it.
Thank you, we have a motion made by Chair Ramachandran,
seconded by Councilmember Wong,
to approve the recommendations of staff
and to forward this to the December 1st
City Council Agenda on Non-Consent.
On roll, Councilmembers Brown.
Aye.
Unger.
Aye.
Wong.
Aye.
And Chair Ramachandran.
Aye.
Thank you.
Motion passes with four ayes to forward this item
to the December 1st City Council Agenda on non-consent.
Reading in item eight, adopt a resolution
authorizing the city administrator
to amend the Professional Services Agreement
with Ralph Anderson and associates
to extend the agreement term through August 31st, 2027
and increase the not to exceed amount by $200,000
from $250,000 to $450,000.
Sorry, the Hawkins Company
to extend the agreement term through August 31st, 2027
and increase the not to exceed amount by $100,000
from $250,000 to $350,000.
And cooperative personal services DBACPS HR consulting
to extend the agreement term through August 31st, 2027
and waiving the competitive request
for proposal qualifications
and the small local business enterprise program requirement.
there are three speakers on this item. Hello again chair and committee members
Amber Lytle, Human Resources Manager. I'm here to present the item requesting
approval to extend three existing executive recruitment agreements through
August 31st of 2027 while HRM prepares a new cooperative solicitation for these
services. These firms provide specialized recruitment services for
executive senior level and highly specialized senior or city positions
sorry the contracts are available citywide and the department's requesting
these services pay the associated fees from their own budget the proposed
amendments would extend the agreements with Ralph Anderson and associates the
Hawkins company and CPSHR were also requesting an additional 200,000 in
contract authority for Ralph Anderson increasing its total authorization to
450,000 and an additional 100,000 for the Hawkins company increasing its total
to $350,000. CPSHR consulting agreement would be extended without additional funding. The
additional contract authority will support current and anticipated recruitment, including
but not limited to the city administrator, constitutional policing administrator, budget
administrator, head start director and human services director positions. HRM plans to
issue a new request for proposal by the end of this calendar year. The proposed extensions
will maintain access to these services in the interim.
I'm here to answer any questions.
Thank you.
I do not support extending these contracts.
I think, given how expensive executive recruitment is
and our own budget uncertainty of in the next budget cycle,
will these positions even exist anymore?
I think there's a lot of uncertainty with,
I think there's a lot of unnecessary funds going
into executive recruitment, which is no doubt important,
but I think can be done within the existing confines
of the amount that's been allocated.
At the end of the day, we know at the end of some
of these executive searches, the city ends up going
with someone that they know and picked from day one,
and it almost seems like a formality sometimes.
So my preference would be, and I understand
if the committee doesn't agree,
My perspective is to not move forward with this
and for existing contracts amounts to stay as is.
Councilman Brown, Carthan Wong?
Yeah, I agree.
This seems like a really large increase
on an already large contract.
I think we have the city administrator job is open
that the others are, well, I mean, we do have recruitments
but I don't feel like we need this service.
Obviously, my office is different
but I did just recruit for a position in my office
and got 220 applications of very highly qualified people
just by spreading it around to various networks
without any sort of headhunting firm.
I don't, this seems like an inordinate amount of money
and I echo Council Member Ramachandran
that we are in a lot of flux.
We also don't know what's gonna happen with Measure EE
and if we're doing a large restructuring
of the mayor's office, we may need to come back
of the different plan after we determine
whether we're gonna be in a strong mayor situation or not.
Council Member Wong.
Yeah, it's interesting.
I was having sort of the same reaction,
so thank you colleagues for speaking up.
One thing I'm just wondering is why we don't do more
like internal promotions.
I think something I hear sometimes is that
we bring in outside folks.
we're not doing enough to really promote promotions
from within and when there can be challenges
with morale to begin with that,
that's really something that we should do
and I'm not sure if we need a headhunter
to really evaluate internal talent
and uplift somebody to head a department in that manner.
Sorry, Council Member Wong, was that a question
or was that a statement before I move on to?
Okay, great, Council Member Brown.
Well, very interesting hearing of everyone's perspective on this, I guess I just have one
question about the contract that has to do for the city administrator recruitment and
noting that the agreement expires at the beginning of next year, and so do you have any like
insight into like are we just trying like is it do we need to ensure that you
know Ralph Anderson and associates actually gets paid for work through the
chair yes so we have already done requests for proposals for those
specific classifications that I listed and so the one that there there's three
that are currently underway which would be budget administrator head start
and constitutional policing administrator.
Interviews are actually happening today
for constitutional policing.
And so, yes, it is to extend those contracts
to be able to provide those services.
Okay, thank you for that clarity.
And then I guess like more specifically,
and let me know if just my notes are wrong,
but for the city administrator recruitment,
is that, I know that that's something that we are,
You know, currently, you know,
maybe the Office of the Mayor is leading.
And so as I'm looking at, I hear you that, you know,
on the constitutional policing administrator in that role,
but I guess I'm just focusing 100% on like the current work
that is taking place for the city administrator recruitment.
And if there would be a gap if we didn't like pay that.
Yes, so currently we have about $14,000
remaining on the contract.
And that would be insufficient
for the city administrator recruitment.
As well as the ones in progress.
I'm sorry, I would be curious.
Colleagues, your thoughts on that.
And I'll just note through the chair with,
so the mayor's office was aware
that we were bringing this item
in support of the at least the Ralph Anderson increase for to be able to
satisfy the upcoming recruitment. I did invite them to come join so I didn't
have to speak on their behalf so you're welcome to follow up with them
separately. And then of course you know depending on Measure EE but we always
know when there's a new change in leadership there often is a change
amongst the agency directors and so you know we always want the best for the
the city of Oakland and their agency director talent.
And so just to invite you to consider
making sure we have sufficient capacity
to bring in the talent we want
to be able to support the city and its needs.
Thank you, council member Unger.
Oh, are you complete council member?
Yeah.
Okay, council member.
Did you say you needed 14,000 to complete the current?
No.
What was the 14,000 number?
That's what's remaining.
That's what's remaining in the fund.
Correct.
Okay.
I would also like us to get the best talent,
but I think we need to sharpen our pencils
and I would invite the mayor's office
to come back to us with a new proposal
for a reduced amount.
Okay, we can move to public speakers.
Calling in the names that sign up to speak on item eight,
Mrs. Sada-Olibala, Kevin Dali, and Blair Beekman.
I agree that measure EE is something that is
going to weigh in on for the consideration of hiring.
I'm not voting, I'm against Measure EE
because I think the transparency and the accountability
will be diminished if that current process staying
with you allows me and anybody else
who wants to know what's going on.
I'm voting against Measure EE.
I don't think you guys deserve a raise with that too.
But the Head Start, why is that on here?
Because I saw the interview at the Head Start committee
meeting for the individual who's being considered
for the job, so that should never be on here.
Is the person who's constitutionally policing administrator
is temporary or is that the person?
I don't know.
I'm concerned that we've hired a human services director
and wasn't here but a month and a half, maybe six weeks.
I'm concerned about somebody else that was hired
and didn't need to stay here that long.
So do we have an evaluation of this firm's credibility
and doing the work they've done in the past
before we continue giving them more money?
Because I've seen some direction of hiring
if they had anything to do with it.
I'm not thinking they're doing a good job.
Were they responsible for the police chief search?
Did they contribute to that?
I don't know.
But the most important thing is,
I hope you do not move this forward,
primarily because measure EE is gonna be
a very determining factor on how you go forward
with administrative hiring.
Okay, switching to Zoom user Blair.
You can unmute yourself.
Hi, Blair Peaclan.
Thank you for this item.
You know, as Oakland has one of the higher budget deficit
local California cities, I know you're
trying to find ways to address budget savings.
San Diego has been relying on questioning the use of higher
upper middle management positions overall
And working towards, I think, just regular middle management
as ways to address everyday workers.
The everyday workers who are more connected with community
tends to be kind of a formula
that's a key amount of traction in San Diego.
So this is addressing higher echelon conditions
and it's raw.
I don't know where you guys are at with that here in Oakland.
Again, what I've described before,
I think workers being willing to take something
like a $25 a month pay cut.
You know, it's like $500 a week.
It's not the greatest cost savings,
but it'll give you like three or four million a year savings.
It's a much better system than cutting
their health benefits and retirement rates.
I think people are much more willing to take
small cut in their salary tiny cut and compared to and that would bring a savings to the city
compared to uh it's more outbreak to end health care plans in time and I don't know where you guys
are at at this time that's where you're at back in June um I just really got on the bandwagon
I just want to talk about it for the sense that you're like the same with San Diego so
Thank you for your comments Chair. That concludes all speakers on this item.
Thank you. Did you have something Ms. Lidle? Yes, through the Chair. Would the
committee entertain extending the contracts, the duration? There's still
money left on some of the contracts and so that would address what Chairperson
and Brown brought up to be able to continue the work
that's already started.
Council Member Bauger.
I'm fine with that.
How long do you propose to extend it?
We are going to go out for RFP this year.
So I would like to see it through August of 2027.
And then I'd like to bring back
the Ralph Anderson contract.
And so what's the cost on extending it?
There's no cost, we already have it associated.
The money is anchored.
Then do we need an amendment or how should we do that?
The motion would include a proposed alternative
recommendation to amend this resolution
as staff just explained,
and that alternative recommendation would be forwarded
to the full council if the committee votes to do so.
I'm comfortable making that motion.
I'm sorry.
But you have something else.
I do, I do.
Good morning, members of the committee.
Mary Howe, HR director, we are wondering
because we understand the council's concern
with the amount, however, we do have to complete
the constitutional policing administrator process
and also be able to pay our bills to Ralph Anderson,
as well as get through the city administrator recruitment,
and obviously how the city administrator position
will be structured will be determined
by the outcome of Measure EE, so we understand that,
and so Ralph Anderson is standing by
to assist us with that process.
So given that the council is uncomfortable
with the asks for 200,000,
we wonder if there's another amount
that the council would be more favorable to
so that we can get through these recruitments
without incurring bills that we cannot pay.
Speaking for myself,
I'm not comfortable extending by any amount,
but the timeframe I'm open to extending to August 27th.
I think that given that these processes have already gone on
and it seems like close to 200K was already spent.
There must already be candidates and plenty of capability
with your department to select from eligible candidates.
To clarify, I think the previous contract authority,
Chair Ramachandran were for other recruitments
that were incurred during the life of the contract.
And so it wasn't just for these projects.
And so we contract with these firms to get the authority
so that when departments or the city has a need
to recruit for a specialized position or a department head,
et cetera, that where the tentacles of these firms
and their expertise are needed, we use them.
And it comes out of department funds.
And so the money is already spent on these contracts.
We're not for the recruitments that we just listed off,
but we're for prior recruitments.
I understand.
Personally, my position is not changed.
Council Member Unger.
I understand.
having to extend it to the end of August with what we already have is that a
motion yes if you could help us I just want to make sure since these are
multiple contract awards that the motions clear so the authority would be
to extend for each of the listed professional services agreements extend
through August 31st 2027 with no increase in any amount and still waving
as requested the LSLBE and competitive process
as necessary for that extension.
Yes, thank you for that.
I'll second it and Councilmember Brown.
I'm sorry I just, we do, we have as my colleague Ms. Lidle
mentioned earlier we did go out and ask for bids
from our existing recruitment firms to help us
with the city administrator recruitment
and we did receive one from Ralph Anderson,
which I think the mayor's office has selected.
And so we're just asking for the ability
to increase their contract,
to be able to meet the cost of that recruitment.
So you're now saying you only wanna increase
one of the three contracts?
Yes, for $75,000 for Ralph Anderson.
And that is for which recruitment?
That is to conduct the city administrator recruitment,
as well as to finish off any lingering items
from the constitutional policing recruitment.
And does that contract with Ralph Anderson
touch any other positions besides?
Not currently, but we don't know what the future holds,
but these are the ones that are currently on the docket.
So tell me what you're bringing it down from.
You were initially asking for how much?
we originally asked for $200,000 for Ralph Anderson.
And now you're asking for 75?
It will be cutting it close, but yes.
And what about the other contracts?
Those were also...
So we're okay with not extending authority
for the other ones.
We were not seeking additional funding for CPSHR.
The Hawkins firm, or excuse me,
the Hawkins company has recently been assisting us
with the Recruitments for Head Start Director,
Budget Administrator, and they were also kind of
also on deck to help us with the human services director
recruitment as necessary.
So the total item you brought us today
was going to increase our expenditure by?
300,000.
300,000.
200 for Ralph Anderson.
And so now we're, instead of 300,000, we're doing 75 total.
Correct.
I'm OK with that.
So I'd like to replace my replacement motion,
if you could help me with that.
Just to be clear, the motion that I have
is to approve as amended to forward this
to the November 10th with the amendment as follows,
to extend for each of the listed professional services
agreement through August 31st, 2027 with no increase
except for $75,000 to Ralph Anderson and Associates.
Yes, thank you.
Okay, so that was, so that was a motion,
It's also to most amended motion to the original motion.
The maker of the motion withdrew his motion
and did an amended motion before the vote was taken.
I don't believe there was a second for that motion yet.
I did second it but I will withdraw my second
and Council Member Brown can second it.
Second.
Thank you.
So we have a motion made by Council Member Unger,
seconded by Council Member Brown,
to approve as amended the recommendations of staff
and to forward this item to the November 10th
City Council agenda with amendments
previously read into record.
On roll, Council Members Brown?
Aye.
Unger?
Aye.
Wong?
Aye.
And Chair Ramachandran?
No.
Thank you, motion passes with three ayes, one no
to forward this item to the November 10th
City Council agenda on non-consent due to a three one vote.
Moving on to open forum.
We have three members that signed up to speak,
to the city clerk for pointing out yes, if I keep on clicking, I can find the pending
list. In fact, there's a giant binder back here, which I rarely open. There's still
a problem that it looks like the Finance Committee's pending list for annual reports for the contractor
The authority report does list that a report was given
on February 24th of this year,
but when I looked in the agenda,
it didn't seem to be there.
So things slip through the cracks sometimes,
but it is worth checking and updating that
and showing probably that it's being given today
at the Finance Committee and then try and keep
to the yearly reports from then on.
Also, this is great, thanks.
So there's an item on the agenda of committee,
I think it's next committee,
for the sale of Garfield Park for over $500,000.
It identifies where the money is gonna go,
the $500,000 is gonna go in the general fund.
But according to the public park preservation
of 1971, if you sell park land, the funds generated from that sale has to be used
for the development of comparable park facilities. So I'm not sure if that
money can go into the general fund or it has to be dedicated to park facility,
what they call replacement or comparable spending on parks. Thank you
for your comments, switching to Zoom user Blair,
you can unmute yourself and begin your one minute.
All right, prayer big man,
I hope my Zoom doesn't cut out, it cut out early.
Thanks a lot for the meeting.
Yeah, I'm gonna speak this week,
the other meetings today and then rules on Thursday.
I'm really sorry I didn't appear earlier this month,
I could have been,
it could have had a more panicalistic feeling to it.
It's like I have a comment.
I'm not so much in favor of the upcoming
IBA measure for the city of Oakland,
but I do really want organizations
and I do want to work with the city,
which community for its best practices
of organizations of the future of Oakland.
So whatever that can take, I'm totally willing to listen
and I can be flexible in understanding
how you want to use the IBA.
And I want to work with that.
Good luck how it can be developing.
I really think that COO process like Oakland has,
I mean San Diego has is a more organized process overall
that I hope you can look into.
Thank you for your comments, Chair.
That concludes all speakers on this item.
Thank you, the meeting's adjourned.