Office Of The City Administrator - Regular Meeting

Good morning, good morning and welcome to the Rules and Legislation Committee meeting on this Thursday, May 28th. The time is now 1035 and this meeting shall come to order. Before I call roll, I would like to give instructions on how to submit a speaker card for item on this agenda. If you are here in chambers in person and participating and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill out a speaker card on the table, grab a speaker card on the table in the middle of the room and turn it into a clerk representative either before the item is called into record or 10 minutes after the start of this meeting, which would be 1045. Also, if electronic online speaker cards were due 24 hours before this meeting began, so we will no longer be accepting online electronic speaker cards, but again, you have, if you're here in chambers and participating and would like to speak, 10 minutes after the meeting began which is 10 45 or before the item is called and with that i will now go over roll on roll for this meeting council member brown president council member fife president ramachandran president and chair jenkins president thank you we have four members present council president jenkins do you have any announcements before i go to the first item

Yes, absolutely. So just want to announce special budget meetings Monday June 1st at 9 a.m. We will have a budget meeting Monday June 8th at 12 p.m. We will be having a special budget meeting and Friday June 12th at 12 p.m. We will be having a special budget meeting And can we confirm the times for those three meetings council president? monday june 1st at 9 00 a.m monday june 8th at 12 p.m and friday june 12th at 12 p.m thank you so much for that we will now move to our first item item number one actually well hold on one second sorry not june 8th sorry about that so let's go back over that again so monday june 1st at 9 00 a.m friday june 12th at 12 p.m and Wednesday, June 17th at 12 p.m.

All right, thank you for that, confirming the three budget meetings starting June 1st and then June 12th and June 17th. So noted, we will now go item one, which was the approval of the draft minutes. We currently have no minutes to approve, so we don't need a motion, but I do see Council Member Fife. Did you, no, so thank you. Moving to item number two, determination of scheduling of outstanding committee items, which is your rules pending list, and I do have one speaker for this item.

Anything from the administration?

No changes at this time.

Okay, let's go to the public speaker.

Thank you. I have Blair Beekman. One moment, I might need the assistance of the Clark team to unmute Blair. I do not, oh, here we go. My apologies. Mr. Beekman, you may unmute it, please begin.

All right, thank you, Blair Beekman. I don't have comment for this item. Good luck in the meeting today, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for that. We need a motion.

So moved.

I have a motion by Council Member Five.

Second.

Seconded, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. Motion by Council Member Brown, my apologies. Seconded by Council Member Fife to approve item two as is on roll. Council Member... brown aye five aye councilmember ramachandran aye and chair jenkins aye item number two is approved with four eyes as is that now takes us to item three new scheduling Starting with item 3.1, which is receive the Budget Advisory Commission report with recommendations related to the fiscal year 26-27 proposed mid-cycle budget. This item is being requested to be scheduled for the special June 1st City Council agenda. We will need to state a Rule 24 on the record as to this item going straight to a council meeting.

Good morning, Monica Davis, Deputy City Administrator. The budget items are typically a separate agenda item and this, excuse me, a separate meeting and this corresponds with the Council President's special meeting he just announced. The same is true for 3.2.

Perfect, thank you so much. And that, again, noted the Rule 24 was stated for item 3.1 as well as 3.2. I will now read 3.2 into record, which is receiving information report in the fiscal year 26-27, Mayor's proposed mid-cycle budget. And this, again, is being requested to be scheduled for June 1st, Special City Council agenda. And, again, the Rule 24 was stated on the record. Item 3.3 is a resolution in support of Senate Bill 1095 related to protecting the privacy and constitutional rights of Californians by prohibiting California fusion centers from sharing sensitive personal information with government and private entities for purposes of unlawful immigration. enforcement and racial or identity profiling this item is being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent and we will need a rule 24 good morning good morning

from Council Member Wang's office. This item was scheduled to go before rules on May 14th, and since that meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum, and we missed the previously requested May 19th City Council, so we'd like it to get to the June 2nd.

Thank you, Council Member Brown.

Excellent, for item 3.3, may I be added as a co-sponsor? Excellent, thank you.

so noted and we have council member brown being added to item 3.3 thank you so much for that now moving on to item 3.4 adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to waive the competitive solicitation process and enter into a indefensible rights of use agreement with sonic.net llc a wire internet wireline internet service provider any amount not to exceed seven hundred twenty thousand dollars for a term of 15 years to lease the dark fibers to complete the city-owned network oakland connect enter into a mou to connect to the city-owned network at no charge for a term not to exceed 10 years with the following housing providers affiliated entities of a the housing authority of city of oakland b fruitvale development corporation and c bridge housing corporation and waiving the competitive solicitation process and enter into a fiber lease agreement with another corporation dba monkey brains a local internet service provider to access and integrate city fibers into IT'S SERVICE NETWORK TO ENHANCE BROADBAND AVAILABILITY FOR OAKLAND RESIDENTS AT A RATE OF ZERO DOLLARS FOR A TERM OF 10 YEARS. THIS ITEM IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE JUNE 9TH FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA. item three point five is a resolution awarding purchase order to own equipment sale inc the lowest responsible and responsive bitter in accordance with the are f q custom equipment specification and contractors be it that met the required specifications for all three custom units in the amount not to exceed two million five hundred thousand dollars for the purchase of three vector truck mounted single engine combination sewer cleaners and adopting sequel findings exemption findings and this is being requested to be scheduled for the june 9th public works and transportation committee agenda Item 3.6 is an ordinance amending ordinance number 13355, granting an exclusive franchise to lift bikes and scooters. LLC, formerly Bay Area Motive LLC, to operate a bike share program, authorizing the city administrator to negotiate and execute an amendment. to the bike share program franchise agreement with lyft to extend the term to no later than december 31st 2032 authorizing advertising sign or bike sharing program equipment pursuant to the oakland planning code and adopting sequel findings this item is also being requested to be scheduled for the june 9th public works and transportation committee agenda Item 3.7 is a resolution congratulating Nicole Duisburg for her 15 plus years of exemplary service to the city of Oakland. And this is being requested to be scheduled for the June 16th, 2026 city council agenda on consent. And we will need a roll 24. Good morning.

Morning through the chair Christian Katzmel the strategic projects manager for housing and Community Development Department We're requesting that this be scheduled as a rule 24 item as a ceremony ceremonial item traditionally given directly to City Council

So noted, this item is being scheduled as a ceremonial item on consent.

Item on consent.

Thank you so much. And now moving to item 3.8, adopt a resolution recognizing June 2026 as a national Caribbean American heritage month and honoring the resilience contribution and leadership of Caribbean Americans in the city of Oakland. This is also being requested to be scheduled to the June 16th city council agenda on consent. And we will need a rule 24 to be stated on the record.

Oh, excellent. Thank you so much. These items usually go straight to council.

Thank you.

And just so I know, item 3.9 also coming from your office, will that be the same Rule 24? Thank you so much. And just noting item 3.8, the Rule 24 was written record. Item 3.9, the Rule 24 is the same. And I will read that item into record as a resolution recognizing June 2026 National Homeownership Month and the significance of declining homeownership in the city of Oakland. And this, again, is being requested for June 16th City Council agenda on consent. And as stated by Council Member Brown, this Rule 24 was stated. I do see staff. Yep.

Hi, I'm Matthew Molson with Councilmember Zach Unger's office. We'd like to be added as a co-sponsor to this item.

So noted, adding Councilmember Unger to item 3.9. Councilmember, okay. Now moving to item 3.10. Item 3.10 is adopt a resolution 2026-1, adopting the annual GAD budget for fiscal year 2026-27, adopting GAD manager payment limits under the existing consulting services agreement and suspending the assessment levy for fiscal year 26-27. And this is being heard on the June 16th City Council agenda. Item 311 is a resolution 2026-1 adopting the annual GAD budget for fiscal year 26-27 and updating GAD manager payment limits under the existing consulting service agreements. And this too is being placed on the June 16th city council agenda. Item 312 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to award a contract to United Rotary Brush Corporation corporation in the amount not to exceed $750,000 for the purchase of replacement brushes, brooms and brushes for street sweepers for a three-year term and two one-year options to renew in response to the specifications RFQ and making appropriate sequel findings to authorizing the city administrator to award a contract to own equipment sales in the amount not to exceed $750,000 for the purchase of replacement brooms and brushes for the street sweepers. for a three-year term and two one-year options to renew in the response to the specifications rfq and making appropriate sequel findings this item is being requested to be scheduled for the june 23rd public works and transportation committee agenda item 313 is um TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION ADOPT THE FOLLOWING PIECES ONE A CITY OF OAKLAND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR TWENTY FIVE TWENTY SIX ANNUAL REPORT OF THE LAKE SHORE LAKE PARK BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF TWENTY TWENTY TWO THE JACK LONDON IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THE TIMISCAL TELEGRAPH BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THE LAUREL business improvement district 2025 the korean town north gate community benefit district 2020 2017 the oakland tourism business improvement district the downtown oakland community benefit district 2018 the lake merit uptown community benefit district 2018 the Chinatown Community Benefit District 2021 Advisory Board, and B, confirming the continuing annual assessment for each said district and levying said assessments. C, increasing the 26-27 assessment by 5% for the Jack London District to Mezcal District, Lakeshore District, Lake Merritt Uptown, Chinatown, district by 3.2 percent for the downtown oakland district and by a three percent for the laurel district in the koreantown district de-authorizing the payment of the city of oakland cumulative physical year 2627 a fair share assessment in an approximate amount of 509 thousand six hundred sixty nine dollars and thirty four cents for the city oakland city of oakland owned properties in jack london DISTRICT THE TIMISKOW THE KOREAN TOWN THE DOWNTOWN OAKLAND AND THE LAKE MERRITT UPTOWN DISTRICT AND THE CHINATOWN DISTRICT AND E RENEWING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICTS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS AND TWO A SUCCESSOR AGENCY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF OAKLAND REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY CUMULATIVE PHYSICAL YEAR 2627 FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF THREE MILLION excuse me, $3,371.34 for the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency-owned property in the downtown Oakland Community Benefits District 2018 to be heard on the June 23rd, 2026 Community and Economic Development Committee agenda. We will now move to recommendations for the May 26th Committee, starting with the Finance and Management Committee. Item 3.14, I will be reading in the short subject titles, Physical Year 25-26 Third Quarter Revenue and Expenditures Report. This item was received and filed in committee. item 315 the city of oakland investment policy for fiscal year 26-27 there was two pieces of legislation and the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the june 2nd city council agenda on consent and again that consists of two pieces of legislation item 3.16 the cash management report for fiscal year 25-26 third quarter ended march 31st 2026 and this item was received and filed in the finance and management committee We will now move to the recommendations from the Public Works and Transportation Committee on May 26th, starting with 3.17, Performance Audit of Illegal Dumping. This item was received and filed in committee. Item 318, Collaborative and Clean Creek Agreement. This item was approved by, the recommendations was approved by to be moved to the June 2nd City Council Agenda on Consent. Item 3.19 consists of two pieces of legislation. It's the Construction Contract Award to S.J. Amoroso, Construction Co., LLC, and Professional Services Agreement Amendment to the Shaw-Kawasaki Architects for the Lincoln Recreation Center Project. This two pieces of legislation was approved to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent, both pieces. Item 3.20 also consists of two pieces of legislation, and this was except an appropriate fiscal year 26-27 external funds. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent. Item 3.21, the compliance status of the sewer consent decree program. The committee received and filed this item. Item 3.22, construction contract amendment for the East Oakland Arts Center project. And the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on non-consent due to a no vote. and we now move to the recommendations from the May 26th Community and Economic Development Committee, starting with item 3.23, and it consists of two pieces of legislation, the sub-regional shoreline adaptation plan grant funding. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent. item 3.24 the annual housing program informational report for fiscal year 2526 the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be received and forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent Item 3.25 is updates from the Oakland Housing Authority. This item was received and filed in committee. Item 3.26, the approval of the new WIOA services contract for fiscal year 26 through 29 amendments for the existing contracts. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent. We now move to the recommendations from the May 26th Life Enrichment Committee. Item 3.27 is the Mayor's Commission on Persons with Disabilities Annual Report. The committee approved to receive and forward this item to the June 2nd City Council agenda on non-consent. 3.28, the OFCY CitySpan Technologies, Inc. contract extension. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent. Item 3.29. Can we go back to 3.27?

Is there a reason this is on non-consent? I don't care or not, but...

I don't know, man. do you is your preference to leave it on non-consent i'm okay with either way um i think it would be good to hear for the entire council to hear the presentation from the mayor's commission on disabilities uh there is a budget ask okay and that ask should be made to the full council not to just the committee no that makes sense okay

So noted we are now moving to I believe recommendations from the May Excuse me, did I do 3.30? I apologize. 3.30 amendment of the resolution 90310 fiscal year 24 through 25 programmatic change to the Youth Employment Partnership, Inc. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent. That...

now takes us to item the recommendations from the public safety committee from may 26th one second council member fife yes that item also was on uh was unanimously approved so i'm requesting to move that to um non-consent i mean to consent which item is this 3.29 3.29 to consent yes thank you okay 3.27 non-consent

3.27 or 3.29?

3.29 consent. Yes.

3.27 consent. So, and 3.29 was the amortization of the relocation of industrial recycling facilities. That is now going on June 2nd on consent, as well as 3.27. The mayor's, no, not.

Okay, so 3.29 will be going on consent, right? Yes. Okay.

We will now move on to the recommendations for the Public Safety Committee on May 26th, starting with item 3.31, the OPD PMAM contract. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent. Item 3.

Council Member Ramachandra.

Thank you. Which council meeting is item 3.27 going to on non-consent?

Currently, I believe we have it to the second.

Okay, thank you.

Moving to item 3.32, the 2026-2030 Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda as a public hearing. Item 3.33, the PSA with Elite Corporation Solutions, LLC. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent with the request for staff to provide a supplemental report correcting the year one and two of the physical impact table to reflect $100,000 for each year. Item 3.34, approving the 2026-2030 Community Violence Reduction Plan. The committee approved to forward this item to the June 2nd City Council agenda on non-consent with no recommendations from the committee. And that concludes all of your item three, and I have three speakers for this item.

Let's go to the public speakers. Oh, Council Member Ramchandra.

Thank you. I'd like to motion to move into a special meeting, noting the presence of a fifth council member on the dice. Second.

And that was a motion by Council Member Ramachandran, seconded by Council Member Brown to adjourn into a special council meeting at the presence of Council Member Wong. Sorry, I did not see her. On roll, Council Member Brown.

Aye.

Council Member Fife. Aye. Aye. Council Member Ramachandran. Aye. Council Member Chair Jenkins. Aye. And we are now adjourned into a special council meeting at the presence of Council Member Wong and I will now move to reading in the speakers for item 3. uh... blair beekman kevin daly and and war uh... but party apologize for mispronounce the name if you are here in president person please approach the podium in any order and state your name for the record if you are participating online please raise your hand so i can't i didn't uh... easily identify you and we will take those who are participating here in person first. So if you are here and I called your name for item number three, please approach the podium. Thank you so much. Anwar, are we, Anwar is passing and so we will now move to those who are participating online. I have Blair Beekman, you are unmuted, you may begin.

I wanted to speak on items 3.17 3.28 and 3.34 today my three items. 3.17 is working on illegal dumping issues. I've noticed a lot of illegal dumping items you've been having that is a mixed bag to me that some are helpful and some are a bit overly punitive. Good luck in working towards, to me, the more helpful community-minded dumping issues on how to work on the illegal dumping matters. You were trying to set up a community process for garbage collection issues back in January and February. I was really excited to hear about that and was hopeful. How was that process going in inviting a community process to come up with answers on illegal dumping and trash I think that can be really helpful in how it can develop. I hope at this point it's starting to develop well. And good luck in those continued efforts. For item 3.27, or no, 3.28, OFCY CitySpan Technology contract extension items. It's really nice to see your OFCY work. that you do and that comes to council agendas here. It's working with young people, children and youth services programs. I think can be a great model and example for San Diego that is really, I've been talking about their austere budgeting and cutting measures going on. Children and youth programs are really on the cutting block in San Diego. And it's so nice to see these items here in Oakland that I hope can be inspiring in how San Diego can learn important lessons to keep the services. And what you really do well in Oakland. I can't emphasize enough what you guys do well in tough budget times. There are a lot of budget items on your agenda this week, today. So really good luck in continued efforts in the importance of social services despite real budget concerns at this time. And for item 334 is approving the violence reduction plan and measure and end issues. Man, this was brought to public safety a couple of days ago, and it was a really good learning process for myself. I hope to talk more at length about this issue. I don't think I can in 20 seconds, but TA1 funding or TI1 funding, I want to learn to talk about that more. Thank you, the funding of this sort of item is gonna come back to council in June at some point. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker participating in Zoom, Kevin Daly, you're up next. I don't see, I don't. I don't think Kevin Daly is available. His hand is down. So that concludes all of your speakers for this item. Chair.

All right, so noting the special budget meetings, 3.1, rule 24, 3.2, rule 24, 3.3, rule 24, adding CM Brown as a co-sponsor, 3.7, rule 24, 3.8, rule 24, 3.9, rule 24, adding CM Unger as a co-sponsor, rule, I mean, 3.29, move to consent, and did I miss anything? Oh, 3.3 as an urgency finding as well. With that, I'll entertain a motion as amended.

So moved. Second. And that was a motion by Council Member Fife, seconded by Council Member Brown to approve item three as amended. On roll, Council Member Brown. Aye. Council Member Fife. Aye. Rama Chandra. Aye. And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number three is approved as amended with four ayes. That now takes us to item number four. Item number four is review of the draft agendas pending list in the city council and committee meetings and this is for your draft agendas, I mean your agendas for June 2nd, June 4th pending list as well as the draft June 9th and June 11th committees.

Good morning. David Jones, Treasury Bureau. We have a request for an item that's being scheduled June 2nd. It's item number 6.5. It's for the fiscal year 26-27 tax and revenue anticipation notes. currently that item is on consent but it needs to be on non-consent and that's due to California government code 53635.7 in making any decisions that involve borrowing in the amount of $100,000 or more the legislative body of the local agency shall discuss, consider, and deliberate each decision as a separate item of business on the agenda of its meeting as described in Chapter 9, Section 5450. So this needs to be moved to non-consent.

Thank you.

Good morning. Bridget Ruiz-Ravezzo from Council Member Wong's office. We want to, from the Public Safety Committee pending list for July 14th, item number one, the needs to be moved to September 22nd. Then from the no date specific pending list item number two Needs to be moved to June 23rd And there is a title change with that Can I go ahead and read it? Okay. Ordinance one, reaffirming the City of Oakland sanctuary city policy collectively found in resolution number 6395080584. and ordinance number 13515 CMS. Two, prohibiting the use of the city property for non-city purposes. Three, establishing additional requirements for the city's response to transfer requests and for consolidating and codifying these provisions as chapters of the Oakland Municipal Code and designating this ordinance as the City of Refuge ordinance. And then there's one more, item number five on the no date specific, moving that item to September 22nd as well.

Hello all, Matthew Molson with Council Member Unger's office. We are looking to make a title change and then schedule item four on the rules pending list and schedule that to the June 16th City Council meeting on consent. The new title for this will be Resolution Thanking Rep. Latifah Simon for co-sponsoring HR 8707, the No Funds for Iran War Act.

Oh, thank you. And I'll be added as co-sponsor to that. If nothing else,

I'm reading in those who signed up to speak for item number four, uh, Kierna Shawnee, uh, Shawnee and Kevin Daly and Rajni Mandal. And in the order, if you're participating in person, please approach the podium. If you're participating online, please read your hand. Those who are here in person. Good morning, Rajni.

Good morning, Rajni Mandel, District 4. For future agenda items, I encourage the committee to consider rescheduling the September 29th city council meeting, which overlaps with the next federal NSA CMC scheduled for 3.30 PM. Given Oakland's historic progress towards potential NSA exit, I think it would benefit if both council and the public to avoid a conflict with the hearing of that significance. I also want to briefly acknowledge the city's extraordinary milestone. For the first time in the history of the NSA process, OPD has reached compliance with all 51 tasks. That reflects years of work, and more recently, remarkable collaboration across city leadership. I want to recognize Mayor Lee, Chief Beard, ACA Phillips, DC Ausmus, DC Smith, City Attorney Richardson, and Bridget Martin, and many staff across those departments who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes. The question before the court now is no longer simply whether progress has occurred, but whether the reforms are sustainable. Oakland should recognize just how significant this moment is and continue supporting the collaborative leadership that helped bring the city to this point. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We will, I have, Kiran, you are unmuted, you may begin.

Thanks, this is Kieran Chenoy. I didn't have anything on item four, but I just want to make sure that I was down for item five.

Excuse me, I have you for a card for item four. This is, I don't have you up for a card for item five.

Oh, I wanted to speak on item five, perhaps. I tried to do both.

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. We'll move your card, okay?

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Next, I have Kevin Daly, but I don't see his hand raised in the queue. I see Blair Beekman, but I do not have a card for Blair Beekman for item four. I have a card for item five, six, and that concludes your speakers for item four.

Okay, so noting July 14th, PSC, item number one will be moved to September 22nd, noting No date specific on PSC. Item number two will be July 23rd with the title change. No date specific for PSC. Item number five will be moved to September 22nd. Rules pending, item number four will go June 16th on consent with the title change and adding Council Member Jenkins as a co-sponsor.

With that, I need a motion.

So moved.

Second. Thank you, I have a motion by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Councilmember Fife to approve item four as amended. On roll, Councilmember Brown.

Aye.

Councilmember Fife. Aye. Ramachandran. Aye. And Chair Jenkins. Aye. Item number four is approved as amended. That now takes us to item number five. and number five is a resolution submitting to the voters at the november third twenty twenty six general election a measure to amend oakland municipal code chapter four point twenty to amend the exception for for foreclosures um transactions and advise measure advisory measure on whether the increased revenue from amending the city real property transfer tax to include certain foreclosure transactions should be spent for the purpose of providing interim shelter transitional housing encampment closure operations addiction treatment job readiness and other related homelessness services and directing the city clerk to take any and all action necessary under the law to submit these measures to voters at the general election and making a sequel findings I do have three speakers for this item all right

Sorry, what's that? Oh, okay.

Okay, thanks.

I appreciate it. Sorry. Thanks, y'all. We just need a few minutes to tee up the presentation. okay all right thanks everyone thanks for bearing with me um so i am putting before um this committee um a ballot measure to close a loophole related to foreclosure and what is called deed in lieu of foreclosure as well as foreclosures and an accompanying ballot measure because um well anyways the city attorney can explain where that is needed for this particular tax proposal so first of all what we're seeing right now is a significant increase in foreclosures right because people are frankly struggling you can see this headline from the wall street journal that was just published this month As it relates to the city of Oakland, we also have stressors on our commercial market. We just had an office building foreclose in East Oakland near the airport. And then, of course, we have a number of apartment buildings also rocked by foreclosures. This was last year and documented by the Oakland side. So when it comes to also just the background on institutional investors in particular when it comes to foreclosures, the Government Accountability Office in a report to Congress, this is back in 2024, documented that essentially in the wake of the housing crisis in 2008, there's been this rise in institutional investment. where essentially what is called real estate investment trusts actually bulk purchase up foreclosed homes at auction and convert them into rental housing. You can also note that in studies show that these institutional investors are also more likely to file evictions than other property owners. Now I wish I had a map for the city of Oakland but you can see here that from this map in Rice University that it establishes that in communities with many foreclosures we're seeing these major single-family residential real estate investment trusts essentially own these properties the key thing that i want to note too in many studies establish that it is in minority and lower wealth neighborhoods where many of these acquisitions are happening and so we're also taking away opportunities for general wealth building So what this is essentially proposing to do, it's pretty simple, is just taking our existing real estate transfer tax ordinance and modifying the language, that way we close that loophole. I wanna explain to you some of how the market works. Because it's a lack of tax equity, right? It's these higher capitalized trust funds that have the ability to A, acquire these foreclosed properties because the auctions require 100% cash. So it's structurally blocking out families who rely on traditional financing. Again, this is essentially what I would call a Wall Street loophole where REITs and hedge funds are not, they're acquiring these foreclosed homes tax-free. And the other thing is that does create market distortion by essentially creating a corporate tax subsidy. Furthermore, when it comes to the city of Oakland and our tax revenue, these are some of the headlines that we had recently in terms of major foreclosed acquisitions. On the right column, you can see how much tax revenue we could have stood to gain from each of those transfers. And I think the deeply ironic thing is that when the economy is down and we're seeing this downturn by this real estate transfer tax, that's when we see a contraction in our real estate transfer tax. So the goal of closing this loophole is actually ensuring when we see those downturns, we actually get more tax revenue into the city. the other thing I want to point out that by closing this loophole right now there's actually the financial incentive to complete a foreclosure now I'm not saying that this is necessarily going to happen in all cases but by closing this loophole we are more likely to apply some pressure to for the market to instead pursue loan modifications instead of foreclosures that we know have impacts to people people's credits, it results in people getting evicted, anyways all sorts of downstream impacts. I also wanted to note that in this legislation that especially because let's be real the glut of office vacancies that we have in the city of Oakland we're not going to be able to like we have I looked into this we cannot there's no way that we can make a mandatory return to office for private companies and so we're going to be challenged in this in terms of the real estate market and so this also includes an exemption so if These, especially some of the commercial facilities, although it goes for anything or if they're converted to interim housing or shelters or SRO housing or as well as health care, because we have an aging baby boomer population, we will always need health care. There's actually the taxes is removed. So we're actually incentivizing adaptive reuse, especially for our downtown cores and our retail corridors that are also being challenged. Now, as I mentioned, there's also an accompanying ballot measure, the advisory ballot measure, which is comparable to what Berkeley did. What we can note here is that Oakland's unhoused, we continue to be incredibly challenged. I know that we had some good news recently around the pit count. I'll be honest, I don't see that reduction happening in my district unless everybody's just pushing their unhoused folks to District 2. We have only 26 open spots out of 1,261 interim shelter spots across the city. So it is a false narrative that people don't accept shelter. There's just not enough spots. um and i also want to note since measure w is something that many folks have pointed out is something that will be the solution to homelessness if you actually look at how the county is spending measure w the majority of that funding is going to permanent supportive housing which will take years to build out um and by my own modeling because they haven't i haven't seen them publish how they how much they estimate there will actually reduce homelessness we will still be incredibly challenged with our unsheltered homeless population in particular furthermore if measure e doesn't pass as it's been written about we are slated to have 200 interim spots closed The other thing that I want to note about our homelessness response system and what this is in particular designed to do is that essentially the focus on permanent supportive housing means that these resources are dedicated for those who are the highest acuity, which means folks who fall on just hard times, who have been on the streets for a few months, those are the folks in our homelessness population that are being the least well-served. there is very little available for these folks i would like essentially what this is designed to do is to get a roof over their head many folks by estimates 25 of our encampment population is actually relying on seasonal work to help them with job readiness including employment to help abate our city's blight as well as leveraging state reimbursements via Medi-Cal for addiction treatment, because there are different levels of addiction treatment. And the longer that you're on the street, the more acute that your addiction becomes, and the more that someone does need actually a permanent subsidy instead of being able to become self-sufficient, right? Which is the key, especially when we have limited tax resources. So that is the proposal. I also wanted to note that I have some floor amendments here. And the first thing is just to reinstate this. These particular exceptions. One thing being. The transfer is a natural person or a family trust and the property consists of four residential units or less. The reason being since, as I noted about the dynamics between real estate investment trusts versus perhaps just a regular family trying to acquire a foreclosed home, this is actually an important pathway of affordable home ownership. The other thing that I'm just adding is I want to make clear because our finances department, they would not be penalizing the person who's getting foreclosed on, but I wanted to add that in legal language just to make sure that this is absolutely clear. Okay.

Thank you, Council Member Wong. Is there somebody from staff coming up? No, okay. Colleagues, you guys have any questions? If not, I'll start.

Okay.

Thank you for all your work that you've done on this. It seems very complex, right, and I'm gonna take my time in doing the research to look over this, but it definitely seems like you put a lot of thought into this. Do you have any projections on how much this would raise a year?

I do, although I'm somewhat reluctant to take this with a grain of salt because it is closing a loophole and our finance department is in the middle of budget season. Basically, it's also very cyclical, right? When it's in a time of distress, we would get a lot more revenue. When it's a time where the economy is actually in the upswing, we're not seeing a lot of foreclosures, that's when the revenue would be less. My estimates are it would be somewhere between $1 million and $5 million per year.

As a baseline, do you have any estimates on what we would have netted in, say, 2022, 2023, 2024, so that we'd have just kind of understanding of this?

I do not have the exact data, but you can see that in slide... for the millions of lost tax revenue those were acquisitions that happened over the last couple years and these were just the headlines so this is definitely not a comprehensive picture

so i'll take some time to meet with you over the next couple of weeks i'll vote to advance this i think i've been pretty consistent though in the city not doing county functions so when we talk about addiction treatment i think that's fundamentally a role of behavioral health in the county and so i definitely will forward this forward and meet with you about the intricate details but i am belligerently against the city stepping into county roles and vice versa thank you

Excellent, thank you Council Member Wong for your work on this. Similarly, I would like the opportunity to engage a little bit more on this item. I'm not sure if Council President Jenkins had a recommendation on what date you would like to forward this to the full council. I do have a handful of questions. I'm happy to talk offline with those, but I guess I'll ask you this first one. Where does the work ready self-sufficiency pipeline fit into the two recommendations proposed? which were the shelter expansion, employment, and Medi-Cal.

i was still asking the question so inter it's basically this is this is what the advisory ballot measure so how do we spend the money where this is where that falls into so and and it's basically establishing why are we funding permanent supportive housing instead of interim housing this is not as i've established a huge revenue source and so part of this is to is to fund that underserved unhoused population that I will say too that we have a lot of for example single moms that are with children that are languishing in our encampments because to get off that permanent supportive housing waitlist you have to be on that for years and so and you have to reach that acuity level in order to get access to that particular housing so it's We need more rapid response models and that is what this is designed to do and the county will continue to use that coordinated entry system or just responding to. Council President Jenkins the county will continue to use that coordinated entry system model that uses that high acuity preference in essence.

because there is a proposed ballot measure that is an amendment to the current real property transfer tax and that's a general tax under the California Constitution that must remain a general tax we are not allowed to impose special tax on the transfer of real property so what this proposal is it maintains that general tax structure and It would modify the current exemption for not taxing foreclosure related transaction to limit it as the council member outlined. And then there would be a separate ballot measure that would be advisory non-binding on the city council that would advise the council member on the will of the voters to allocate the funds. But it would not be binding and all the money would go into the general fund for allocation. I'm available to answer questions, but I just wanted to make sure it was clear that it's not operating similar to other special taxes where there are limits by the voters on the council's use of the funds. So this advisory measure would not operate similar to other special taxes that the council is used to. where the uses as directed by the voters are binding on the council. This would be non-binding input from the voters on how they would like to see council allocate the funds, and those uses are in the advisory measure.

And this is one ballot measure or two?

They need to be two separate ballot measures.

So we have to pay for two separate ballot measures?

Yes.

Council member Fife.

This issue that is attempting to be resolved by these two ballot measures is incredibly complex. And I guess my first question would be through the chair to council member long. Are you working with. Our homelessness division housing. And community development or any of our staff who focus on this. with their entire departments, or are you working with community groups who also specialize in these areas? Who are you working with to help advise this legislation?

Now, absolutely, and Cupid and I have been in discussion definitely about this ballot measure and implementation of it. And even prior with Sasha, that gap that I identified, she agrees that that exists, right? We have previously under this council have funded, for example, homelessness prevention, right, through that pilot, through the budget team.

there continues to be a gap for the people who have been on the streets at that like one month to like six listen i want i want to interrupt you because i've spent the majority of my career working on these very issues people know me because of these issues for taking over a house for homeless moms in west oakland so i don't i'm not asking about what the details are of the challenges with this population. I'm asking what is the professional advice that you're taking to inform this legislation, especially because there are a lot of questions in this legislation that are are not answered with what we've been presented today. And so again, there's a very serious gap that does need to be addressed with the direction of our housing department focusing on permanent supportive housing. I just I want to be sure that what we're presenting to the voters, particularly because there are multiple ballot measures that are a part of this legislation. And there's a cost to that, that every single question is answered. I'm still not clear on. the revenue that will be netted, the impact to RETT, what happens if Measure E doesn't pass, and we have the, you know, what did you say, five to 10 million?

I said somewhere between one to, Depends on which model you want, right? It could be somewhere between one again and an up an economic upswing in which case we would have more of our traditional rett During in the time of economic downturn, right it I mean, I suppose the sky's the limit right in terms of how much distress we could experience and so But based off of historical data, uh, perhaps up to you know, six million but again, this is It all depends on the economy, right?

I think when we're presenting, I don't even think, when we are presenting as a body information to the voters, we need to be as definitive as possible. We need numbers, we need data. And when I've been on this body, and before I was here, ballot initiatives, are serious. We're presenting something to the voters, and we want to be as clear as possible about what will come from what we're passing. So I'm just concerned that there's a lot left unanswered, and I wanted to know if there's information on the impact of the exemption. If we can get clearer on the revenue that is lost due to existing foreclosure transaction exemptions, how does the city stand to bring in proposed revenue and if measure e doesn't pass and this money is going to the general purpose fund and it's not binding what happens then do we if we need to use the revenue for something else because that's we've seen that happen over the years so i just know that in the past when we brought ballot measures um in in front of this body and in front of voters it's taking months and months um sometimes a year for those deep dive questions to be answered. I remember when we were working on the business tax ballot measure, was it 2022? I don't remember, that there were meetings with the chamber, with community groups and labor, which I think is important around RETT, that happened for a very long time. We had multiple presentations in the rules committee multiple city council meetings. And that is the kind of rigor that I think we need to go through when we're bringing something like this forward. I think it's so needed. So the attention that you're paying to this issue is critical and it's so important. I just think it needs more rigor to go through the process to make sure that this is a solution to the problem that we're facing.

Thank you can some of the 5 to Councilman long. So question about the advisory piece and I'm going to ask the clerk how much it costs per item we put on the ballot, but is that something that you're willing to men that met a clerk what is the cost per item. That we put on the ballot.

So right now depending on the length of the measure each ballot measures approximately $600,000.

So I guess for something that's advisory in nature, I would just want you to think about the cost it would be to the voters and if that's something that you don't have to answer today that you would consider removing. Any more questions from the council members? If not, we can go to the public speakers.

As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order. If you're participating in Zoom, please raise your hand so I can easily identify you. I have Kieran Chenoy, Blair Beekman, and Kevin Daly, again, in any order. If I called your name and you signed up to speak for item five, again, if you're here in person, please approach the podium. We will now move to those who are online. I don't see anyone in person. I have Kieran Chenoy. You are unmuted. You may begin.

Thank you Karen with the bridge association of realtors. 1st, I want to thank council member long for being responsive to the concerns that we raise and we appreciate that the 1Million dollar cap to the exemption was removed. And we also appreciate the restoration of the exemption for natural persons and family trust. Those are meaningful and important changes, but that being said, we still have reservations regarding the removal of exemptions for small investors and entities. It is important to understand that not every entity is a large institutional investor or Wall Street speculator. Many smaller LLCs and closely held entities are simply local families, partnerships, or small operators using standard liability structures to acquire and rehabilitate distressed properties. These are often the very investors willing to take on difficult redevelopment projects that larger institutional actors avoid. We are also concerned that while the transfer tax may be relatively insignificant to some large banks and institutions, it could still affect underwriting decisions and further disincentivize lenders from financing larger rehab projects in Oakland at a time when access to capital for redevelopment is very important. Tightening policies that increase transaction costs may further reduce the lending activity for those types of projects. And this is especially important during downturns, actually, when the city absolutely needs this type of revitalization. We certainly understand the council members desire to target large institutional acquisitions and generate revenue for good causes. But we would respectfully encourage exploring ways to preserve protections for small investors and operators who are contributing positively to Oakland's housing stock and the neighborhoods to ensure that the city's actions don't generally disincentivize investment in our struggling commercial corridors. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We will now move to our next speaker, Blair Beekman. You are unmuted. You may begin.

Hi, Larry Beekman. I'm not very good at these sort of things. I found it interesting item to hear, and I was overall impressed with what I heard from the previous public comment and from Councilperson Fife's comments. I guess a bit more study is needed and a few more questions. I know that the work I do in living in San Diego and the life there, the issues around shelter provision versus finding actual housing for people is we want to be working more towards finding housing. Shelter is important and this item could be very good for that. Finding housing is an overall important goal. I like how Councilperson Wang tried to mention that we don't want to be working towards programs that simply keep people in a cycle. And it's important how to learn how to work out of that cycle. And yeah, and so you're on the right track, it seems like with this item. I also have a few questions about that it's rewarding that when we're in an economic downturn period. I mean, to me, it was interesting how it worked out for this item that I felt acceptable. But as questions are being asked, I guess just an overall question that relying on economic downturns that can better support this program in the future may be a question to ask a possible red flag to consider, a yellow flag to consider. Otherwise, this item does have some real nice intentions. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, and those are all the speakers who signed up to speak who have their hand raised in the queue.

Yeah, so Council Member, although there are a number of questions, I think allowing this to go to full council is appropriate. I also think there should be some time in between this going to full council while also respecting that this would need to be heard twice to get on the ballot. Once? Once more? Okay, so it only need once more.

Yeah. Yes, to the Council President. This would not require two hearings at Council under Charter Section 221. The measures that require two hearings are bond measures, parcel tax measures, and charter amendments.

Okay, so Council Member, is July 7th okay with you? I think that gives... Too far out? June 16th? So if you believe that you can work everything out between now and June 2nd and so be it Council member I'm Chandra Thank you We have a very impacted June 2nd calendar.

I would prefer the July 7th date Said that again. We have a very impacted June 2nd calendar. I'd prefer the July 7th date. I

Okay, Council Member Brown.

Yes, I'm also supportive of the July date, and especially given some of the feedback that we've received around community engagement, outreach, just historically how long it takes for these items to go through the process, I think that Another thing that's also important in this engagement, and just even in general when we're bringing forth legislation, there should be members of the public showing up and saying, hey, you know what, we support this for the following reasons. So I think that if we give it some time between now and July, I think some of the questions that I didn't even ask, I would love those to be answered. And in addition, more community engagement and outreach. And so my vote is for the July 7th to move it to that date.

So I want to be clear. I have done the community engagement. Maybe you all weren't part of those discussions. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't been done. And I told, because this is rules. Once we actually agendize and put it on full city council, people will come.

Sounds good.

Excellent.

To the parliamentarian.

Yes, as a reminder, the council will need to adopt an ordinance kind of consolidating our local municipal election with the statewide election. That ordinance includes all the ballot questions from the measures that the council has placed on the ballot. So basically we will need to know what measures are going on the ballot prior to the council considering that ordinance. And as you know, ordinances require two meetings. so we would need the right now there's two regular meetings scheduled in july so we'll need those meetings unless there's going to be a special meetings we'll need the july meetings to deal with the consolidation ordinance okay so i will make a motion to forward this to the june 16th city council meeting on non-consent 17th june 16th june 16th

Is there a second?

Can I second?

Is there a second?

Thank you. Through the chair, Council Member Wong, you said that you have done community outreach. What organizations have you done outreach with?

So, uh, I've talked to, uh, Dr, uh, know how, uh, at roots. So actually really this theory around more job readiness and workforce development for the subset comes from her thinking and, and recognizing there is a gap in the system. And as, as an example,

would love to speak with you offline because I don't want you to take my comments as personal because this is not personal I just think this needs more time to deliberate so I'm I was unaware of the information that the parliamentarian just shared about the July meetings potentially needing a special meeting this needs to line up correct

Sorry, yeah, just to clarify. So any measure that council places on the ballot will need to be done ideally in June because we'll need the two regular meetings in July to pass that consolidation ordinance. So certainly if the council is calling other special meetings, that might throw off that schedule. But as of now, there's two regular meetings in July and we'll need that for the council to adopt the consolidation ordinance. And the consolidation ordinance states any measure that's going on the ballot. So any measure that's going on the ballot. No, I understand. Okay.

I understand. I don't know if the information that's being requested by this committee can be done in two and a half to three weeks. That is my concern.

That'll be my problem, right? So let me meet that challenge and please give me your questions and I will compile answers to that. I mean,

It's all of our issues, and I hear what you're saying. But we, the information that you're bringing forward, we have to do our due diligence to put our faith in the actual process and what's being crafted. So I will support with a second. And just to be frank, Council Member Wong, through the chair, I'm going to be extremely rigorous about how I investigate this particular item because I think right now in the city of Oakland, voters are very skeptical about their government. And I want to make sure that what I put my name on, especially around an issue that I fought my entire career for, makes sense. This is an area, again, that I've spent a lot of time with, and I believe that it needs a lot more scrutiny. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, no, that's absolutely fine. I invite the rigor. I also wanted to address one of the comments, the public comments, by the way. There is an exception, to be clear, carved out for community banks, because I specifically wanted to make sure that we weren't going to freeze up local credit flow. So some of these things have been thought through. Again, this is an initial presentation. Yes, it is a complex topic, I assure you. I have done some of the thinking, and I welcome us to think through it as a team, because I don't think of myself as alone being the expert, of course, but I don't know how we have that public debate and engagement and amendments or whatever this body wants to do unless we at least agendize it. So thank you for doing that. A second.

To the body, does the motion and the second include forwarding to council with the amendments that were shown by Council Member Wong?

Yes, with the floor amendments. Council Member Ramachandra.

Thank you. So through the Chair of the Parliament, Taryn, is there no way that this could get on the ballot, basically, if it's scheduled to a July meeting?

to Council Member Ronchandon, the consolidation ordinance will take two readings. Materials are due to the county in early August. The council goes on recess at the end of July. As of now, there's two regular meetings scheduled in July unless another special meeting was called. We would need those two regular meetings to adopt the consolidation ordinance.

It is a possibility of doing both in July. It would just be only those two meetings plus being able to schedule a special one if needed. Theoretically, this could work in July.

Yes, theoretically, if the council voted on July 7th, at the council meeting on July 7th to place this on the ballot, that would bump the consolidation ordinance to the next meeting in July, and then you'd need another meeting for the second reading of the consolidation ordinance, because again, the measure would need to be referenced in that consolidation ordinance.

Thank you. My preference is still to have this be heard in July i too would like a lot more time to un to understand this i see that now there's enough council members that i can't speak to directly about it but i really want to understand the implications of this and i that does involve time because all of the meetings in june are so impacted and i think that we can get it there's since i've been on council we've we've passed ballot measures in july we've gotten we've gotten them in a tight timeline it's not ideal and i know the clerk and city attorney that means a lot of work but we've done it in the past having items start in july and end in july and get on the ballot and it passes so my preference would be for this to go to the july 7th meeting through the chair if i could um while i do prefer you all to do your extra hard drill down for ballot measures

As the city attorney said, when you start the agenda process of a ballot measure in July, it does push the city clerk's office and the city attorney's office up against the wall as far as deadlines. And as you all know, we are all still stretched in staffing and the nomination period also does open in July. So we have other things going on in the office at that time and introducing special meetings during that time when your calendar year has ended, but starting election, work for ballot measures also pushes us up against a tight wall because we we still have other things going on in the office once you all's recess starts okay councilmember brown

Excellent, thank you. Not to make things complicated, I just wanted to inquire of the possibility of rescheduling this item to rules and then we do our due diligence and get our questions to you And then we can determine if it could go to the full council meeting on the 16th. So could we just reschedule this in rules for the 11th? Continue the item to the 11th and then, kind of based on some of the questions that were asked whether it be a list of all of the community organizations you've engaged like the work that you said that is yours right and then that could be the report back and then from there we could forward it to the june 16th uh city council meeting with uh how does that sound is that procedurally yeah are you amenable to that

I, yeah, I'm amenable to that.

Okay, so we'll make a motion to, so I'll withdraw my motion. Are you okay with that, Council Member Fife? And then I'll motion to continue this item to the next rules.

Well, June the 11th.

June the 11th rules.

And I'll second it if that's open.

And to be clear, is this also with the amendment? So we'll bring those back on the 11th as well. The amendments that were handed out on the dais?

Yes.

Okay, so that was a motion by Councilmember Jenkins, seconded by Councilmember Brown to continue item number five with the provided amendments to the Rules Committee on June 11th. On roll, Councilmember Brown?

Aye.

Fife. Aye. Ramachandran. Aye. And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number five will be continued to the June 11th rules as amended. And that now takes us.

Council Member Fife.

President Jenkins, there were a number of our colleagues that wanted to have further dialogue about this item. I'm not sure who the Brown Acted group with the council member are, so if we could clarify that, it would be really helpful.

So how about we allow you and Council Member Brown to have your questions asked. Oh, Council Member Brown, no.

I'll exclude myself, thank you.

so yourself and me as a part of the team that can ask council member wong questions yes i will ask through the chair uh council member ramachandran did you also have questions i don't want to be spoken to prior to this so so how about Maybe after this meeting, Councilmember, I don't wanna put Councilmember Wong on the spot. She can tell us who her Councilmembers are.

Okay, all right, next item.

Moving to item number S6, adopt an ordinance amending the reenacting Oakland Municipal Code Charter 3.08 to remove section 3.08.240 ballot title and summary of the city measure to clarify and remove unnecessary requirements for the city-sponsored ballot measure. Amend section to clarify requirements regarding nomination petition and amend the section to clarify, to declaration of candidacy forms and add section 3.08.085 to clarify requirements for the ballot designation. I have two speakers for this item.

Nasher Reed, city clerk and clerk of the council. Before you, oh, I'm sorry, we need an urgency.

We do, apologies, thank you, Clerk Reed. That's why you're, Clerk Reed. We do need an urgency finding on the record for this item. A motion or?

This item was added at the supplemental portion for the agenda, for the rules agenda. The urgency is it needs to be heard and completed before the start of the nomination.

period in july i'll make i'll make the motion and that was a motion by council member brown seconded by council member ramachandran to approve the urgency finding stating on the record on roll council member brown aye council member fife aye ramachandran aye and chair jenkins aye item uh the urgency finding was approved with four eyes

Thank you, thank you for approving the urgency. So this could be heard in committee first before it goes to the council. Before you is an ordinance. The ordinance proposes to amend the city's municipal election procedures to promote clear election administration and reduce unnecessary costs and administrative burdens. This ordinance deletes Oakland Municipal Code Section 3.08.240, which requires a ballot and title for The city council originated ballot measures. OMC section 3.08.240 is duplicative of impartial legal analysis requirements already required for the ballot measures. It is not necessary under state law. This ordinance would also amend language in section 3.08.040. So update requirements for nomination petitions and amend section 3.08.080. to clarify requirements for declaration of candidacy forms, consistent with uniform materials under state law. And finally, the ordinance would add section 3.08.085 to clarify local requirements for ballot designations. Additionally, I'm asking you all to approve a simple amendment which in section two underlines 20 as it was accidentally left off in the ordinance. And I'm available for questions, and for questions I cannot answer, the city attorney is available to assist.

Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, any comments from the public?

Yes, I have two speakers, Blair Beekman and Kevin Daly. I see Blair, you are unmuted, you may begin.

Hi, Blair Beekman. As this will be affecting the upcoming November election, I hope that it is, it sounds like it's just serving procedural matters. basic procedural needs and matters that I hope that can be a good goal and process. I'm really questioning some of the ballot measures that will be on in November and I hope these amendments are not simply to serve those items coming up on the November agenda that I think or November ballot that I think are questionable and I hope this is an impartial about what's going on right now, thank you.

Thank you for that, and that concludes all of those speakers' names who I've called whose hands was raised in the queue.

I entertain a motion.

So moved. Second.

As amended.

As amended.

Thank you for that, and that was a motion by Council Member Five, seconded by Council Member Ramachandran to approve item S6 as amended, and also noting the urgency finding that was approved on the record. On roll, Council Member Brown?

Aye.

Five? Aye. Ramachandran. Aye. And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

And noting this was approved with four ayes as amended to go to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent. That now takes us to open forum. We have Kevin Daly, Blair Beekman, and Rashmi Namandal. In any order, if you're participating here in person, please approach the podium and then I will take those who signed up online after. Thank you so much.

Rajni Mendel, District 4. I wanted to show my support for the proposed mid-cycle SIPRA staffing adjustments. There's a growing narrative that any vacancy freeze within civilian oversight somehow threatens Oakland's NSA compliance, but the federal court record simply does not support that claim. Oakland is now closer than ever to exiting federal oversight after more than 20 years, because of improvements within OPD leadership, internal affairs, discipline systems, and city administration. At the same time, CIPR leadership has publicly acknowledged ongoing infrastructure problems involving reporting systems, procedures, and operational development. The city auditor also identified governance and accountability concerns within the oversight structure itself. So the question before council is not whether oversight matters. It absolutely does. The question is whether Oakland should continue expanding bureaucracy before foundational systems are fully stabilized. The current proposal primarily freezes vacant positions while preserving core investigative functions.

Thank you for your comments. We will now move to our Zoom speakers. Blair Beekman, you are unmuted. You may begin.

Hi. Thank you, Blair Beekman. We're going through some difficult times in San Diego right now, budget issues and such. I'm speaking at public comment times, you know, the importance of the work you do in Oakland. Keep it up. And I hope they can, you can have good conversations about social services before austerity. And that's vitally important. And thank you that you do that so well here in Oakland. I wanted to mention, There's ideas of T1 spending, I think it's called, for the NN items. I'm understanding that T1 items actually has a tendency to be difficult to really, there's not a lot of success in T1. So making that budget accountable process can be difficult. Thank you that you're going to have budget issues on NN this June. That's really thinking forward. Thank you for that.

Thank you for your comments and that was the last speaker who has their hand raised in the queue.

Thank you, this meeting is adjourned.