Finance & Management Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning, and welcome to the finance and management meeting of today, October 28. The time is now 09:34AM, and this meeting has come to order. Can everyone hear me? Thank you. Before taking roll, I will provide instructions on how to submit a speaker's card for items on this agenda. If you are here with us in chambers or here in Room 1 and would like to submit a speaker's card, please fill one out and turn it to myself before the item is read into record. Online speaker requests were due twenty four hours prior to this meeting. The meeting came to order at 09:34AM. Speaker cards will no longer be accepted ten minutes after the meeting has began, making that time 09:44AM. With that, we will now proceed to take roll.

Council member Brown?

Present.

Councilmember Unger? Here. Councilmember Wong? Present. Chair Ramachandran? Present. Thank you. We have four members present. And before we begin, councilmember Ramachandran, do you have any announcements for today?

Yes. Thank you, everyone, for bearing with this room change, things a little differently. Also, we're in a really difficult time financially now. If folks might have read the news, we're facing millions of dollars of liability in a pretty big lawsuit over, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars worth. So this is really a time that we have to come together and think about cost savings and how we're gonna come together as a city and continue to make tough choices as we've been in the past. And with that, I'm excited today to have on the agenda some interesting revenue generating items as we figure out how to push forward as a city. So thank you. Happy to go on.

You, chair. Moving to our first item of the day, which is item number item one, the approval of the draft minutes from the committee meetings of July 8 and September 30.

Move approval. Second.

We we have have a a motion made by council member Brown, seconded by council member Wong to accept the draft minutes from the committee meetings of July 8, September 30 as is on roll. Council member Brown? Aye. Councilmember Unger? Aye. Councilmember Wong? Aye. And chair Ramachandran? Aye. The motion passes with four ayes to accept the draft minutes from the committee meetings on July 8 and 09/30/2025 as is. Moving to item two, determination of scheduled outstanding committee items. This is also known as your pending list.

To the administration, are there any changes?

At this time, there are no changes.

Okay. I will entertain a motion.

I'll move approval.

Second.

We have a motion made by council member Unger, seconded by council member Brown to accept the termination of schedule outstanding committee items also known as your pending list as is on roll. Council member Brown? Aye. Councilmember Unger? Aye. Councilmember Wong? Aye. And Chairwoman Chondran? Aye. This motion passes with four ayes to accept determination to schedule outstanding committee items as is moving to your first item of the day, which is item three.

First action item. Excuse me. Receive an information report for a list of options to raise an additional ongoing 40,000,000 to general purpose fund revenues via an ordinance to adopt or increase a tax effective 07/01/2026 to provide ongoing resources for public safety and to maintain key equipment IT systems and nine one one investments. And you do have three speakers for this item.

Okay. To the administration, if you want to present.

Thank you, chairman Arwachandan. Brad Johnson, budget administrator. Before your responses to your questions that were raised at the prior committee meeting regarding options to raise the $40,000,000 that is budgeted for our second year of our biennial budget. We did our best to respond to all the questions that this body had had in its open conversation, plus some other questions that we had received via email and other at other times. As you note, I would probably want to highlight for the benefit of the public and the members here, the net effect of the proposed new parcel tax when combined with the projected change to our PFERS levy, which are on page two and three of the report.

I would note that those are probably the items most important for you to make sure you review and understand, but I'm happy to respond to any questions, further questions you may have on the other, responses that are provided here, and to have any further discussion as to how you'd like to proceed in terms of development of this ballot measure potentially.

Okay. To the administration, can you talk a little bit about the PFERS changes and go through that side of the report and the interest of the public?

Absolutely. So the city currently levies a property tax override which funds its closed retirement benefit system, which we'll have a conversation on it another time later. That property tax override will fade down over the course of the next several years as we reach the PIFR's full funding date at the end of twenty twenty six fiscal year, which is the current fiscal year. As that PIFR's tax override fades away, residents of Oakland will see savings on their tax bills. PIFR's tax is an ad valorem tax, and so it's a little bit different than a partial tax.

It's more akin to our bonds that are levied on property tax bill. The analysis before you shows you the effect of the average homeowner of a partial tax if structured like our current measure Q and measure n n parcel taxes when combined with that reduction in the PIFR's levy. As I mentioned earlier, the PIFR's tax is an ad valorem tax. So it's per dollar value of assessed value of the house versus a partial tax, which is flat. And so there is a little bit of difference in who is charged what under the two tax regimes.

Notably, people that have held their properties for a long time may, under California's proposition 13, have very low assessed valuations on their house. So if you've held three bedroom house in the city of Oakland since prop 13 was passed in the late eighties, you probably have a very, very low AV on your tax and you actually probably pay a very, very low property tax. That same house were to sell today, it may sell for an AV that would be recessed to that could be up to 10 times that value resulting in 10 times the amount of tax on ad valorem basis for that same house. The way that the switch over from a partial tax to to a partial tax from the ad valorem tax would work is some of those lower valued properties would have increases in comparison. But for all of the various mechanisms, you would likely see decreases for the vast majority of homes in the city of Oakland.

And so if you were to look at the tables for a $40,000,000 levy, we will likely see between 6163% of homes receiving a reduction. And we expect that to be further discounted when we take into a pact that our parcel taxes have certain low income senior and very low income provisions in them that will also not apply to certain low income persons. So, the specifics, again, are there for the $40,000,000, 50 and $60,000,000 numbers just for your information and consideration. And, again, I will note those homes that will be potentially be paying more that would hit on the other side are likely properties that pay a lot less into this sort of municipal system of city, school district, and county funding as it is right now.

Council Member Korenker.

So it's not just that some of the PFRS tax will be rolling off. It's that some has already rolled off. Right? So is that 40%, 50% number, is that just taking what is going to roll off in the next year? Or does it also take into account what rolled off last year?

This is taking into account only what will be rolling off. If we were to take into account what has already rolled off, you could effectively these numbers would double because we've brought down almost by half the levy already. So we've all Oakland residents have already seen savings due to their P versus taxes.

And when did when did the last roll off happen?

We did it not this full year fiscal year, but the prior fiscal year. So fiscal twenty four twenty five. Okay. So the property tax bills that would have been paid in December 2024 and March 2025.

And, you know, I I think just for myself to help conceptualize it, I had asked for what the amount was on a million dollar home just so people could then easily do

the math on their own. Do you have any do we not is that not here? I can certain I will give me a moment. I will give you a number on that. We can move on while you're doing that. Well, it's not super complicated as it's a 0.75% on a $1,000,000 home. Can do that math relatively quickly, but I'm happy to take other questions as I run through this calculation.

I just think that would be a good number for us to sort of get out there in the world so people can sort of do the easy back of the envelope math for their own assessed value.

Happy to take other questions in the meantime as I'm running through this calculation. Sorry.

Apologies. I can't see all the council members at a given time, so if you just raise your hand higher. Thank you. I do not like this room, and I hope we go back to chambers.

About 1 and a half thousand dollars would be the average roll off is what we would be seeing, health number.

So 1 and a half so $1,500 was the previous roll off Yep. Or the coming roll off?

That's the roll off that that's the total roll off. So we For both. For both. So we had about a point 15% total rate that we were levying. That rate will come down to near zero for a million dollar home. That's about a thousand $500 that you'll see roll off over the course of the sunset of the PIFRS tax override.

Okay. So that that's a so $1,500 over the course of two years ago to one year from now. Yep. Okay. Thank you.

Councilor Vuong.

First of all, thank you so much, Bradley, for this very comprehensive report. You explored a lot of the tax scenarios that we had put forward. One question on the progressive parcel tax. So the example that you provided was based off of use instead of, for example, property size. How challenging or would it be to do an analysis based off of size or actually forget the analysis just to actually implement a progressive parcel tax based off of property size?

So we would have to be so there's a little bit of a legal question on that just to make sure we're not coming close to approximating an ad valorem tax. That's often a thing that we'll get in that we could run into legal trouble with, so we'd wanna talk to OCA about that to make sure there's no case law that says that moving in that particular direction isn't skating too close to the line as as it were. We could levy based on the size. Are you interested in the parcel square footage, or are you interested in the size of the built area of the parcel? They're actually different questions. So

Can you explain the difference? Sure.

If we were to walk across the street, the center across the way has lots of buildings that are in excess of 12 stories. The gross square footage of the total buildings on that property is a lot higher than the fluid the floor print of the area underneath it.

Uh-huh.

And so depending on how you levied it, you might get disparate impacts. So one could imagine because you can't do it based on the value, a if you only did it on the parcel square footage, you might be taxing a built up, you know, holding a 100 people parcel in downtown the same as you would hold for, you know, two or three small units in the in East Oakland, which happen to sit on the larger set of land.

Set of land, right.

But not on not but don't have as much square footage. And we would want to analyze that to make sure that we don't have inadvertently a negative progressive effect on the income because often what you may find is the parcels that are larger in terms of their square footage may be at a lower value and owned by owners that are paying a lower value for them. We know we've gotten into issues with our vacancy tax of of some of the square footage being unbuildable. So that's also sort of a question we would need to assess if we're looking to base it on the land area in addition to the legal question around that.

Okay. Is there a difference in challenge of implementation?

Correct. We would need to work with our current engineer assessor to make sure that we are properly doing that. I don't think parcel area would be dramatically different. It would require us to individually assess and bill every single property within the city. That should be available in the county's record, so it's not that it's undoable. It might require Both

versions are the data's already available?

The square footage of the buildable area may be harder to get come by. That would be a little bit more challenging potentially for us to do. It changes require more assessment. I can't say that implementation wouldn't require staff resources. We need to assess that.

And my other question is whether because, for example, in the use the the use based progressive structure that you provided or the the other one that you provided which is like the high density unit the high density housing is there anything that restricts people from passing on that tax to, like, renters? Not really. Right? And so it may it may actually flow down to renters inadvertently. That's my concern.

I would imagine if the property is under a city rent control ordinance that that would be I believe that's prohibited, but I would want to look at some of our attorney and colleagues, and I'm not sure if we have that answer here. I think it may be prevented for those that are covered under the city's rent enforcement ordinance.

Okay.

But if you are if the landlord is capable of raising your rent sort of at their own discretion, then obviously they could pass it on to you via one way via one means or another if you aren't protected by city rent control in one way or another. So we would need to get back to you as to whether or not the city's rent control ordinances provide protection. I think they may in terms of how they're formulated, but for everyone else on other properties, it probably would not.

Okay. I will get back to you on which version of the progressive parcel tax structure we'd like analysis on. Thank you.

Yes. I just also wanted to thank Bradley and the finance team for, so comprehensively, answering so many of our questions. And so I definitely understand, kind of the note around the real estate transfer tax. And then I guess maybe my question is about the UCT, the utility tax and, you know, just some of the changes that we've made around really aligning ourselves, with some of the environmental efforts. And we are seeing that more buildings that are being built, especially apartment units, being built here in the city of Oakland are moving towards elect electrification.

And so I know in the analysis, it, you know, it basically shares that the you know, it's not gonna generate as much, the 40,000,000 because we know our the goal is the $4,040,000,000 deficit. But I guess I am curious in the future or what would it look like if in the future we were to kinda make this adjustment? Is that something well, I guess, like, what is the precedent of, actually having both of these items on the ballot, right, to, really show, you know, just folks that we are really trying to support overall electrification?

Through the chair to councilmember Brown. So I would say that, the concern you would have about putting them both on a June ballot would be a political one about, you know, the saliency of passage of both of them. I would note that your utility users tax, utility consumption tax, similar names for the same tax, is a general tax. And should the council decide to put a general tax on the November election ballot coming up in November 2026, it would be a 50% margin tax provided it stayed at a as a general tax. So similarly to when Measure T, our more progressive business tax rate structure, was changed and modernized, a modernization of our UCT could be done at the same time.

But in order to do that, it needs to be kept as a general tax, which means it's not earmarked, and it needs to be held at a general election of the local entity, which for us is November 2026.

I see. Okay. Thank you. And I guess I'm just really bringing it up because we see that, a handful of other local cities have have made that that change. So even if it's not, in the immediate future, it I think it would be something that we should have on our radar.

Understood. Appreciate it.

Okay. Colleagues, we if there's no other comments now, we'll move to public comment.

Wanna call your name. Please approach the podium. State your name for the record, and you do have two minutes. Procedure, we will start with in person speakers, and then we will go to Zoom. Starting with miss Asada, Kevin Daley Dolly, excuse me, and Derek Barnes.

You may approach the podium to your right, my left. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry. Kevin Dally. I'm a cochair of the policy and legislative committee of the Bicyclists and Pedestrian Advisory Commission. And I talked about parking policy in the past, but I want to bring back something.

Last night, we had a discussion of parking policy and how it affects traffic safety. And there is one thing that I want to make clear. First of all, parking policy needs to emphasize safety of pedestrians, cyclists, etcetera, and proper ticketing will reduce double parking, parking the bike lanes, parking in the daylighting zones, etcetera. So if the parking department is better funded, I think for a while, it will make more money. Of course, there's a risk.

Everyone will suddenly start following the law, and then we will make less money off of ticketing. I think that's a net gain, though, overall. But but make sure we always look at how it affects safety of traffic safety when you look at parking policy. Still raise rates when appropriate. Thanks.

Shame on you for what you did on Moore Farmer, and I'm gonna repeatedly talk about it. Now you're going through all of this dialogue, and I know and you know you're gonna put a partial tax on the on the ballot. So why don't you just stop all of this and say, that's what we're gonna do? But when you do that, nobody is asking the question, what kind of impact is this gonna have on homeowners? It's gonna have a big impact.

One example is property values declined as of September 2025 in a report that was done on home values, particularly related to Zone 94612, ZIP code, where the property went down 30% from early twenty twenty. Homeowners in Oakland face significant financial burdens due to high cost of living property related to fees that is imposed on them, steep maintenance of their property, local regulations that are costing them more money. Oakland's medium effective property tax rates five times higher than the national rate. Unlike many other cities, Oakland holds homeowners responsible for maintaining the public sidewalks and sewer sewers that are lateral to their property. I got a whole list of stuff that the that you guys are imposing on on homeowners.

I'm not a homeowner, so it's not bothering me. Local crime rates, maintenance of property is causing property value to decrease. The whole statewide homeowners insurance averaged $7.37 per year. The average rate for Oakland homeowners that have to pay home, home insurance is $1,600 annually as of early twenty twenty five. And I got some more stuff. Y'all not talking about the burdens you're putting on homeowners, and you're going to them again.

We're now moving to our Zoom speakers. If you signed up, please raise your hand so you're easily identified. And we have Derek Barnes. And that concludes your public speakers for Item three.

Okay. Colleagues, any other questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

So moved to does this need to go to the full council or we'll just just, receive it here receive it here?

Second.

Thank you. We have a motion made by council member Unger, seconded by council member Brown to receive and file this in the finance and management committee on roll. Council member Brown? Aye. Council member Unger?

Aye.

Council member Wong? Aye. And chair Rama Chandra?

Aye.

The motion passes with four ayes to receive and file this in the finance and management committee. Moving to item four. Receive an informational report from the city administrator in response to the city auditor's recommendations in this substantiated whistleblower investigation regarding city of Oakland uses unauthorized formulas for calculating over time that defer from l FLSA guidelines, and you do have two speakers for this item.

Okay. From the administration, I believe this is a oral report. So you will hear

Yes, ma'am. Thank you through the chair and members of the council. In response to the city auditors investigative report, dated 02/20/2025 concerning the city's formulas for calculating overtime pay for employees in the Department of Transportation and Public Works, There are several key questions that have been answered, and we'd like to provide a brief update. The auditor bases findings on what is required under the Fair Labor and Standards Act or FELSA, it's commonly known by, which is considered to be the floor or the baseline for calculating overtime compensation. It is not uncommon that organizations are able to calculate overtime that is more generous than what the FELSA requires as a baseline.

Based on our records, the city has applied a more generous overtime calculation for at least seventeen years. And although we have not been able to locate documentation of this practice, based on the length of time, we have effectively established a binding past practice. We would need to collectively bargain a different calculation method, should that be, the pleasure of the council and the council's, direction. We certainly appreciate the auditor's diligence in investigating this matter, but we do not believe we have deviated from the method of calculation for almost two decades and requests, after, you know, hearing this item that this item be, received and filed.

Thank you. So myself and Councilmember Unger brought this item to get some clarity basically on the auditor's report that we were paying unauthorized amounts of overtime that was not per any written formula. I understand that you're saying this is a floor, but so that this can be authorized and in writing, do you have plans to change the official overtime calculation to reflect what these staff members have been getting paid?

Through the chair. So I think that's something that's the direction and pleasure of the council. We also have our representatives from the Department of Human Resources here to assist me with answering questions So I want to give Director Howe an opportunity on the front end to answer that question. But we'll certainly jump in and go Thank

you. Good morning, members of the Finance and Management Committee. Mary Howe, Director of Human Resources. Chair Ramesh Andren, I'm sorry, was your question about memorializing the current practice or changing the practice?

Memorializing the current practice, which is above the FLSA guidelines, but still allowable.

Certainly, we can look into methods of doing that. One way would be to, I guess, include it into the collective bargaining agreements or the other way would be to have some sort of established process memo where we would memorialize this practice. And so we would discuss that with our partners in the finance department to determine the best method to pursue.

Thank you. And through the parliamentarian, is that something that counselors can provide direction on? Or is an administrative process that doesn't require our direction?

Malia McPherson from the city attorney's office. If the question is about the item in front of you today, it's just an informational report. If there's an interest in scheduling a future council action, it could be a scheduling item. And I think what the city administration is saying is that there's already plans to you know, work with the council on future council action, if necessary. But it it could be a scheduling item if you want to have

more direction. Thank you. If we simply wanted an update, could we continue this item in committee for a few months down the road to to hear any update on what changes have been memorialized?

That is one of the options. If you'd like more information, defer to the city administration on how to handle this item. So if it wants to be a scheduling for a new item for three months or a continuing item, versus just continuing this item indefinitely.

Through the chair, councilmember to, councilmember Ramachandran, members of the committee. So we can certainly offer up in writing what the path forward actually would be after we consult with our partners in finance and HR to identify what the path forward recommended path forward would be. Happy to put that in a memo to the entire council so that we can preserve the time at committees for, you know, other business, given that we've talked through this. But also want to offer just time with Audre Houston so that his office does know how we're moving forward as well, because we want to make sure that we do this in in partnership across the board.

Thank you. I'm open, of course, to the feedback of colleagues, but my preference would be to hold this item in committee. And I appreciate the offer to send a memo, having because this was something that was very made very public by the city auditor to keep it in the public eye. And I understand this might take some time, so I'm happy to have it scheduled down the road. So, like, the last meeting in December or something by the the committee meeting by December, if that's enough time.

Through the chair, if, if it's the pleasure of this body, if we can certainly revisit that closer to the January to give us enough time given the fact that we have a number of pressing items in front of us that we're working through. And with the auditor's office, I think that would be more than a reasonable amount of time that I would respectfully request that additional month.

Thank you. I have two more quick questions. So I'm happy to have this at January so we can receive some kind of substantive update. My second question is other departments. It's quite possible that this extends to departments outside of public works and what was studied by this very narrowly scoped auditor's report. What is the plan to look at other departments? Or if a formula has changed, will it be citywide for all departments receiving this kind of FLSA over time?

Through this year, we certainly want to really identify a broad scope to make sure it does it is just not limited to to the Department of Public Works and Transportation. And to your question, yes, there would be consideration across the spectrum to make sure that we're equitably applying whatever policy that we have. But I also wanna defer to Director Howe to give some additional context and insight.

Certainly. Thank you. So Chair Ramachandran, the formula is not just exclusive to departments. It's likely based on bargaining units. And so if so I would venture to say, and we can certainly have our colleagues in payroll central payroll take a closer look, but it would apply citywide.

Thank you. And final question, is the auditor available? I'd love his feedback on this.

Through the chair

or someone from his office to chime in since this came from his office.

Through the chair, he did let our office know that he wasn't available today, but happy to coordinate time with his office so that we can all kind of get on the same page and discuss.

Thank you. Colleagues?

So just to put a bow on this, my understanding is that there are different ways to calculate FLSA. We are calculating one that is somewhat more generous than the minimum FLSA wage, which is there's nothing illegal or inappropriate about that. It's just something that we have been doing. We've been doing it for close to twenty years. And any changes to that because of that past practice should be undertaken through the negotiation process, which is eight months away from a new contract. Is that correct?

Through the Chair, that is correct.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much for the update. My question is and correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I missed it. I guess I'm just curious, has there been a report that has uplifted based on different bargaining units what is the calculation for the various departments for overtime? Has that been generated?

Council members and FMC committee. I'm Angie Suksane. I'm the payroll administrator. So there is a calculation that we can email and share with you that's been long standing for about seventeen years. For nonsworn, there's a seven day calculation, two seven day calculations.

And for sworn, we have a look back period for police, goes back twenty eight days. So not the pay period, we put back twenty eight days to calculate their FLSA. And then for sworn fire, we have a twenty seven day look back for them, and then also special over two zero four hours pensionability. Pensionability. But that formula has been sitting there in Oracle to calculate based on what people enter on their time sheet.

I see.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I know we have to hear public comments. There's no other comments from council members.

I'll move to public comment.

Thank you, Chair Ramachandran. Moving to our public comments. When I call your name, please approach the podium. If you're participating via Zoom, please raise your hand so you're easily identified. We will take in person speakers before Zoom speakers, miss Asada and Kevin Dolly.

I suspect you don't know how to get that money back. $1,700,000 went to 526 employees. You're supposed to be in a process of informing those employees they were overpaid and directing them with a specific amount of money that they have to return to the city. You haven't spoken about that. You also have that you and May hired a consulting company to advise you on the issue and how to fix it.

They should be in the room. You're calling for the auditor to be here. Why didn't you call for the vendor to be here to say since May, what progress have you made in fixing the system? Do your job. Then you have the IFPTE Local 21 has found in May 2025 that the city had not civilized 38 sworn office positions in departments like internal affairs, IT, a move that would reduce overtime costs of $13,000,000.

Now I read that. Why haven't you brought that up today? Because you're too busy going after people like Omar Farmer degrading them and causing them to have a picture of they don't know how to do their work. Do your work. We could have saved $13,000,000 if you would have followed what was in the report today. If

I called your name, you're still wishing to speak, Kevin Daly? Thank you. That concludes your public speakers for Item four.

Thank you. Then I will make a motion to hold us in committee until to the January 27 Finance Committee meeting. Oh, question.

So I think one of my colleagues has suggested that we do an analysis across the departments. Can we also begin with the departments that have the highest number of overtime? Because that would reap the most benefits for the city. Thank you. It's a question. Yep.

Through the chair of the through the chair of the council member Wong, yes. We can certainly consider that. But I'll obviously, you know, with the experts in the room, we need to figure out how do we scope that project out.

So Okay.

Okay. So I'll I'll restate my motion to hold this in committee until the January 27 Finance and Management Committee meeting to to be able to get an update written or oral on I I take that back. A written update on the status of implementing, any written changes to the, overtime policy.

Second.

Thank you. We have a motion made by account chair Ramachandra, seconded by council member Brown to continue this item to the 01/27/2026 finance and management committee. On roll, council member Brown? Aye. Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. And chair Roma Chondran? This motion passes with four ayes to continue this item to the January.

Moving to item five, adopt a resolution approving the side letter to amend and clarify article two eight seven one of the 11/01/2020, 06/30/2026 memorandum of understanding between the City of Oakland and the International Association of Firefighters Local fifty five to be effective 11/01/2020. And you do have two speakers for this item.

Good morning, Finance and Management Committee Chair Vamishandran. My name is Crystal Remy Adams. I am a Principal Employee Relations Analyst in the Department of Human Resources. I am here today to present to the the fire staff premium pay side letter signed by both the International Association of Firefighters, IAFF Local fifty five, and the city. I'd like to start off by thanking IAFF president Seth Oyer for working with central payroll, our office, and with CalPERS to reach this agreement.

This side letter agreement amends Article 2.8.7.1 of the IAFF MOU, renamed as Fire Staff Premium, to clarify the purpose and criteria for eligibility of the premium and ensures the premium complies with the Public Employees Retirement Law requirements for reportable compensation. There will not be any additional costs as a result of this side letter, and this premium will only apply to those employees who performing administrative duties versus suppression duties. The side letter will be effective as of 11/01/2020, to ensure that represented employees who have already received this premium based on existing contract language will have the compensation considered as reportable compensation to CalPERS. The revisions to the MOU reflected in this side letter are for compliance with the Public Employees Retirement Law and do not increase the universe of employees who are eligible for this assignment, as that will be based on the operational needs of the fire department. We recommend that you adopt the resolution that approves the fire staff premium pay side letter between the city and the International Association of Firefighters Local fifty five.

I'm happy to take questions. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues. Any questions, comments? Okay. Public comment?

Moving to our public speakers. When I call your name, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. You have two minutes. Miss Asada and Kevin Dolly.

So this says that you didn't do something right so you gotta correct it. So how did it happen that the language in the MOU originally created did not comply with the public employees retirement law requirements for reportable compare, I'm not gonna go into what it was about. But that's the bottom line. Something wasn't done right, and now you gotta redo it because it wasn't done right. Oh, I wanna remind you, nobody's gonna lose their job because a lot of this happens.

We gotta go back and fix things because it wasn't done right, and we just skirt over it. It's no problem. But when Omar Farmer, who didn't do absolutely nothing wrong, all of you sat there and said it wasn't appropriate him for him to be reassigned to the police commission. So now you gotta screw up with a document not being done correctly, and you gotta fix it. And you're gonna act like, oh, this is not important. Yes. It is important, particularly if you're gonna hold black men like Omar Farmer accountable for something he did not do. So every screw up, I'm gonna emphasize it. You're act like it's no big deal. It is a big deal.

Your city attorney's office is supposed to review every document that goes that is brought to this city for us to, have some kind of input about. That didn't happen. The city administrator, you have a responsibility to review every document to make sure it's done correctly. That didn't happen. And you approved this council, and you didn't see it. You got a nerve to hold Omar formal responsible, and all day long, I'll be recognizing stuff. I read every document. Do you read them?

I conclude your public speakers for item five.

I just wanna flag that this change was a result of CalPERS changing their reporting requirements and that every public safety agency in the state is having to make a similar change at their council in order to comport with the new CalPERS language.

Yeah. I said you too.

And just to confirm that it says in this report that there's no fiscal impact. Can somebody clarify why that is?

The Chair of the Council for Wong, we already provide a staff premium. We are not updating that we are providing a staff premium or changing work. Are updating the terms and conditions that allow to comply with the with the new CalPERS standards.

Okay.

So it's an this is an existing practice.

Okay. Understood. Thank you.

Councilmember Brown.

Move approval of this item.

Second. To the clerk or and parliamentarian, does this need to be forwarded to full council for the full council meeting on consent? Yes.

We have a motion made by council member Brown, seconded by council member

And I just wanna double check. And what time is the meeting? Is that the nine? This is for the regular scheduled 9AM on Tuesday?

It's a special meeting, is it?

9AM. It would be 9AM. 9AM

on November 4. Yes.

Thank you. We have a motion made by council member Brown, seconded by council member Wong to approve the recommendations of staff and to forward this item to the November 4 special city council meeting for 09:30 on consent on roll. Council member Brown? Aye. Councilmember Unger? Aye. Councilmember Wang? Aye. And Chairwoman Chondran?

Aye.

This motion passes with four ayes to re to improve the recommendations of staff and to forward this item to the to the November 4 city council agenda at 9AM. Thank you. Moving to item six. Receive an informational report regarding the annual equal access to services ordinance compliance report for Fiscal Year 'twenty four through 'twenty five. And you do have one speaker for this item.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Andrea Mariani. I'm the HR Manager over Organizational Development and Equal Access. And today, we're going to present the annual language access report. I'd like to start off by acknowledging the vital work of the Equal Access Program, the first of its kind in the country, serving almost half of the Oakland community who have limited English proficiency. This program, based on language equity, is important and vital to one of the most linguistically diverse communities in the country. Today, to introduce the report and give you a summary is May Tam, who runs the Equal Access Program. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Chairperson and members of the committee. My name is Mei Tam. I am a Program Analyst for the Equal Access Program. And today, I'm going to present to you our annual compliance plan.

So this is an information report, and it serves as a city administrator's annual compliance plan on the implementation of equal access ordinance for the period of 07/01/2024 to 06/30/2025. There's two sections of the report. First, there's the agenda report, which provides aggregates citywide data. And then there's also attachment A. So attachment A includes all the, translation and interpretation record for the reporting period, census data on limited English speaking population and also department compliance plan for each of the city department.

On Page two, provide a very nice little snapshot on citywide compliance data. City Of Oakland is culturally and linguistically diverse. Census data shows that 42 of Oakland residents speaks a non English language at home. The most common non English language is Spanish followed by Chinese. About 2,500 city employees work at an office or city facility that regularly interacts with the public.

These positions we are referred to as public contact positions, and 24% of our public facing employees are bilingual in either Spanish or Chinese. During the reporting year, four twelve translated documents were produced and three zero eight hours of live professional interpretations were provided. A citywide language access survey was launched in the 2024. Data is presented on Page eight and Page nine of the report. Surveys were disseminated in city public contact locations throughout the city's facilities.

A total of seven ninety five responses were collected. More than 45 languages were identified on this survey. The most common spoken languages identified in the survey are English, Cantonese, Spanish, Mandarin, Vietnamese, French and Korean. By implementing a language access policy here in Oakland, everyone living, visiting and doing business in Oakland is provided with fair and equitable opportunity to access city programs and services. It helps advance citywide policies, priorities and promote meaningful civic engagement.

The annual compliance report presented today serves as an information report to capture citywide language access services and staff recommends the committee accepts this report. I'm available to answer questions, and staff from city departments are also available in the audience to respond to questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your report. I appreciate, the many efforts over the years. You know, some of this is, of course, mandated by law and settlements, and others is to show that Oakland cares about access to a very diverse population of different language speakers. You know, the so these efforts are noted and appreciated. Colleagues, comments, questions? Councilman Wong.

Hi. Thank you so much for this important report. How do we hold departments? What are the accountability mechanisms? I will say later today in public safety. We are receiving an informational report from the auditor that notes fairly concerning inequities when it relates to nine one one response time when someone doesn't speak English and how that adds significant really, when when that is minutes saves lives and it makes a difference and how we can move this forward and and hold departments accountable to this.

So, we do have this annual process. I would say this annual process is very valuable. Every year we meet with each of the city department. We have a language access coordinator assigned to each of the departments and we have meetings and we have compliance plan and we have compliance report. And there are different checkboxes in the compliance report. So if you go to Attachment A in the department compliance report, they each have to check off the different checkboxes, make sure trainings are provided, resources are provided to staff, make sure phone lines are providing multilingual messages, make sure vital documents are translated into different languages and is included on this report. So this is a valuable process. We do it every year. It feels very fast. Nine months down the road, we start the process all over again.

So it feels very, very frequent, and we do have ongoing communication with the departments. And I understand there's a report from the auditor's office encouraging more translators and more bilingual staff. That's definitely something that we have been in communication with the police department in terms of the dispatch center. There are currently selective certification for police communication dispatch going on, and we're encouraging the department to hire someone who's bilingual.

And furthermore, you've done a department by department analysis. Is there are there what what departments would you name? Is it it's been critical that we actually increase language capacity because it it does a disservice in terms of our city services.

Now the city's the city ordinance and AI administrative instructions provide a, formula for calculation. It's based on limited English speaking population data. So the goal for Spanish speaking bilingual employee is 10%, and a goal for bilingual Chinese and English bilingual employees is 4%. So if you look at the table, if any area that shows 0%, that will be an area of concern. It also depends on the number of public contact positions.

Some departments are huge. Like, works department is very huge, but not everybody talk to the members of the public directly. So we focus on public contact positions, people that are really working with the public and apply that percentage. So in some areas, see the for instance, the mayor's office, when this report was produced, have zero Chinese bilingual employees available in the office. That could be one of the concern. But at the same time, departments oftentimes have interns and volunteers volunteers who work in the office that could also provide the language capacity.

I think one that I find noteworthy is fire because they provide medical services and care. So do you can you make comment on how that impacts especially the medical services when we don't have bilingual the bilingual capacity as you've recommended?

Yes. So we also have members represented by the fire department today. I don't know if you want to hear from the fire department directly. Throughout the year, all the requisitions for recruitment will come through human resources management and come through our office as well, and we will recommend hiring bilingual staff. But I also understand sometimes waivers or exemption may be applied. I don't know if the fire department representative want to speak on Sure. Yeah. Other efforts.

Good morning. Michael Hunt, Oakland Fire Department.

So how just if there's somebody who has a medical emergency and fire shows up and they don't speak English, how does the department, handle that considering communication with the person would be critical?

So the the there is a the dispatch services uses the interpretation line as well as members in the field use it as well. So if there is a situation where, there's a medical incident that fire responds to, they can utilize the interpretation line to, develop a translation to, directly interact with the patient and family.

Okay. So, basically, it's somebody's got a phone, and they're interacting with the patient on okay. Mhmm. Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Other

questions? I have one, just because it came up in my previous work as a workers' rights attorney. You have one of the languages that more we see more and more in Oakland is mom, which is very notably different Spanish. Are there staff members in the city that speak mom, or do you rely on the language line?

I would say both. Now for equal access ordinance, the focus is is on threshold languages. That means still with the English speaking population over 10,000 thresholding in terms of City Of Oakland population. So the focus for this report is on Spanish and Chinese because that is the focus of the ordinance. Now we do have different contractors that we bring in to serve the City of Oakland. All the contractor have language capacity to cover a 100 languages and MAM is one of the languages covered by our vendors. So from time to time, we have colleagues from OBRYD, we have colleagues from DHS wanting to arrange for interpretation among languages and we'll work with our vendors to bring in one.

Okay. Great. Thank you. We will move to public comment.

Wanna call your name. Please approach the podium. Miss Asada.

Every year I come to this meeting and ask you the same thing. You are the finance committee. The questions you should be asking is mainly you can ask all these other questions, but mainly, how much money we spending? How much they say here, twenty four hour a day over the phone interpretation. How much

that

cost? Staff, how much does that cost? Translation of written documents, how much does that cost? Verbal translation, how much does that cost? Maintaining telephone messages, how much does that cost?

Vietnamese Arab translation materials, how much does that cost? Contracted consultants, how much does that cost? 601 employees are eligible for a premium pay. How much does that cost? Cost of surveys, cost of posters, cost of employee training program, is there a cost related to the department access coordinator or they do that for free.

Okay? The cost of administrative bilingual text and verification of language skills. How much does that cost? Y'all looking down. You are the finance committee.

What's the cost and what's the source of funding for all of this? Every year I've been coming here for years when y'all do these reports. You never ask any questions about how much money they're spending. You also have them with 42%, and they said they're only supposed to apply this skill of what they do to Spanish and Chinese. But they're doing it to all different groups, but they're leaving out groups too.

Why do you leave out those groups if you're helping some groups that don't come under the 10,000 spectrum? Ask the question, how much money are you spending in this department? You are being irresponsible if you are not looking at costs related to this issue because you are the finance committee.

That concludes your public speakers for item six.

Thank you so much to our public speakers and colleagues, and I assure you the cost that we spend on these programs are a lot less on a lawsuit if we would be sued on these things. Colleagues, is there a motion? And to the parliamentarian and clerk, does this have to go to full councilor? Can we file in committee?

I think it can be filed in committee but if there's a past practice of having it go to full council I defer to city administration.

Okay. Is there a motion?

So moved or to accept the report.

To full council or Yes. On the November 4 meeting on consent? Yep. I'll second it.

Thank you. We have a motion made by council member Wong, seconded by chair Ramachandran to receive and forward this item to the November agenda at 9AM on consent. On roll. Council member Brown? Aye. Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. And chair Ramachandran? Aye. This motion passes with four ayes to receive and forward this to the November 4 city council agenda at 9AM on consent. Moving to item seven.

Good morning, committee president.

Receive an informational report on the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System's investment portfolio as of 06/30/2025, and you do have one speaker for this item.

Good morning, committee chair and members of the Finance and Management Committee. My name is Tayyar Jenkins, and I am the investment and operation manager of the retirement division for the City of Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System, more commonly known as PFERS. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the investment portfolio of PFERS as of 06/30/2025. This is a critical report because this is the report that feeds into our audit and our actuary and is used in the city's contribution calculation. I would like to note that, you know, due to our recent performance, our strong performance over the last few years that the city's contribution from the PTO to PEEFERS decreased 10,000,000 this year.

To assist me in presenting the investment information, I have the PEEFERS investment consultant, David Sandwich of Makita Investments. Just to give you a brief overview, PEFERS is a closed retirement system. It was closed to new members in 1976. After that point, City of Oakland employees became members of CalPERS. Currently, all the members of PFERS are retired.

And as of 06/30/2025, we had a membership of 597 members and an investment portfolio valued at approximately 480,000,000. Based on the most recent valuation, is 90% funded. Next, PFERS investment consultant, David Sandwich, will discuss the PFERS investment portfolio in more detail.

Good morning. It's a pleasure to be back here again. We give these reports on a quarterly basis. And I will say candidly that given the previous agenda items, we'll end on a good note. The Peefers Hotel, Peefers portfolio is a very healthy position. As Tayr mentioned, we're now above 90% funded. It has an assumed rate of return of 5%, so we recently brought that down last year and consulted with the actuary. So we don't have to shoot for the stars with this portfolio. And as of June 30, we were in the middle of transitioning the portfolio out of risky growth equity assets and into more fixed income and bond like investments. That has happened as of July and August.

So the next report you see, you'll see that 61% of these assets are now in bonds, which are much less risky and safer than equities. The really good news about this portfolio is with a 5% return objective, we more than doubled that for the fiscal year period ending 2026. So we had a 10.2% net return for that fiscal year period. And even though we derisked the portfolio, we gained an additional 5% in the previous three months. So year to date through September, it's up 10% as well.

You do have the report in front of you, and I won't go through page by page on that to save you a bunch of time. But the portfolio grew from $453,000,000 after you figured in expenses and benefits that are paid out. The investments brought in 44,900,000.0 or $45,000,000 ended at a market value of $480,000,000 We're pretty happy with where the portfolio is and where it's going, and we certainly will be paying attention to this. We do have a board meeting tomorrow, over in Hearing Room 2 Or 1. I'm I don't know which room it is. If folks would like to attend and ask questions, that meeting starts at 10:30. But that concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, colleagues. And councilor Morangar.

I just wanna thank you all for good work on this, providing some relief to Oakland taxpayers and the Oakland budget. Appreciate it.

Okay. If there are no other comments, we'll move to public comment.

Thank you. When I call your name, please approach the podium. Kevin Dolly. That concludes your public comments for item seven.

Thank you. And do we we receive and file this report? Right? Okay. I will entertain a motion to receive and file. Second. Oh, I'll I'll I'll go ahead and make the motion to receive and file.

And I

thought you made the motion. Sorry. I'll second it.

Thank you. We have a motion made by chair Warmachandra, seconded by council member Unger to receive and file this in the Finance and Management Committee on roll. Council member Brown? Aye. Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. And chair Warmachandra? Aye.

The motion passes with four ayes to receive and file this in the finance and management committee. As a reminder, item eight, regarding the audit recommendation follow-up report as of 06/30/2025 was withdrawn from this agenda by the October and rescheduled to the 12/02/2025 city council agenda on nonconsent. An additional reminder, item nine regarding the professional services agreement with Marcias, Jenny, and O'Connell LLC was withdrawn from the agenda by the October 2025 rules and legislation committee and rescheduled to the finance and management pending list, no date specific, moving to open forum. Kevin Dolly, miss Asada, and please approach the podium. State your name for the record.

I'm I'm not gonna spend a lot of time because, you obviously don't care. But this grand jury report clearly states the reasons why you should not be selling bonds, and you know it. You know it, Brian, that we should not be selling bonds. And it's in the report for people like me to understand why. And you did it anyway. You're putting us at risk by selling those bonds. We we are already financially, unsolvent. We have a tremendous deficit. And to sell bonds like you've done is irresponsible again. You've been irresponsible the whole meeting.

So I'm waiting to see how you're gonna respond to the grand jury report related to this issue. You can sell the bonds, but it's a tremendous risk factor. And you instructed him not to do it. You told him to wait in until December to see how we would be as far as our ability to have a a positive rating.

That concludes your public speakers for open forum.

Okay. The meeting is adjourned.

10:40.