Office Of The City Administrator - Regular Meeting

Good morning.

Good morning and welcome to the Rules and Legislation Committee meeting on this Thursday, June 25th. The time is now 1031 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 items on this agenda. If you are here in chambers and participating in person and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill out a card and hand it in to the clerk representative before the item is called into record or 10 minutes after this meeting began. This meeting began at 10.31, so that time will be 10.41. Online speaker cards were due 24 hours before this meeting began, so we will no longer be accepting online speaker cards. But again, if you would like to submit a speaker card and you're here in person, please fill out a card, turn it into a clerk representative 10 minutes after the meeting began, which is 1041, or before the item is called into record, whichever one comes first. With that, I will now begin with roll. On roll, Council Member Brown.

Present.

Council Member Fife. Present. Council Member Ramachandran.

Ramachandran.

Present. Chair Jenkins.

Present. Good morning.

Thank you. We have four members present. Chair Jenkins, before I go to our first item, do you have any announcements? No.

Okay, this is unusual, but I want the port people to get out of here. We're going to call item five first, then six, then we'll go to the regular items. No, two first.

Okay, thank you for that. The announcement was, per the chair, we will go in this order. We will take item two first, and then we will take items five and six, and then the consent calendar following that. Thank you for that. So we will now move to item, our first item, we don't have minutes to approve. Our second item is determination of scheduling outstanding committee items, which is your pending list. I have no speakers for this item. I just need a motion.

Anything from the administration?

No changes.

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. So moved.

Second.

My apologies, and that was a motion by Councilmember Brown. Seconded by Councilmember Ramachandran to approve item two as is on roll. Councilmember Brown? Aye. Councilmember Fife? Aye. Ramachandran? Aye. And Chair Jenkins? Aye. Item number two was approved with four ayes as is. Now taking the agenda out of order as requested by Chair Jenkins, going to item number five. Item number five is a resolution confirming the mayor's reappointment of Alvina Wong as a member to the Board of Port and Commissions. And I have no speakers for this item.

All right. Can we hear from the mayor's office and the board commissioner?

Good afternoon, Chair Jenkins, Council Members, President Kilgore, Deputy Chief Staff, and Mayor Barbaralee. So I'm here to present on the reappointment of Alvina Wong to the Port Commission for reappointment. Alvina brings nearly two decades of experience advancing social, environmental, and economic justice with a strong track record of building multi-racial coalitions and advocating for equitable development, environmental justice, housing, and community center policy solutions. During Albina's service on the Port Commission, she has brought thoughtful leadership, a collaborative approach, and a deep commitment to balancing economic opportunity with community and environmental priorities. The mayor continues to be confident that Albina's experience, perspective, and dedication to Oakland will continue to be a valuable asset to the commission. We respectfully request your support for her reappointment.

Commissioner, did you wanna say anything?

Good morning, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all and share more about my reappointment. As I was able to introduce myself more last year as the base building director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, APEN, a proud District 6 resident and a member of D6 Community Action for Resilience and Equity, D6 CARE, living a mile away from Coliseum off the 880 corridor. When I spoke last year, I really wanted to express to you all my values, my experience, and my commitments in my environmental justice and community work thus far to gain your confidence in confirming my appointment to the board, and I appreciate you all for advancing that confirmation in order to fulfill the last final year of former Commissioner Yuh-Hae Lee's term. So today I'm back to ask for your confidence again for a full term on the Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners. In this past year, I have been dedicated, collaborative, and inquisitive member of the commission focused on really the prosperity and responsibilities of the port, as well as participating in continuing its commitment and excellence in being a good community partner and economic driver for Oakland and the region. Over the past year, I have engaged in many critical real estate, airport, seaport-related decisions that really center the possibilities of sustainable growth, both in the economic and environmental sense. I've joined the audit committee, as well as airport and environmental ad hoc committees, and have dove into this work, what I'd like to say, heart first. It's been quite a lot to pick up a year, within a year, And while I think my colleagues would agree that I've been able to keep up, a full term would really allow me to continue supporting the port's efforts in zero admission transition, maintaining and growing our airport and seaport opportunities, while also meaningfully choosing real estate and contracting decisions that are exponentially beneficial for and rooted in Oakland and beyond. So I'm excited to continue my partnership with you all in the city. I've had really great conversations and want to continue to make sure that what's happening on the port is coordinated and thoughtful to what is happening in the city and making sure that your concerns are also reflected in the port's conversations. And so I'm open and available for any other questions if you may have. And really wanna continue looking forward to thought partnership and collaborative problem solving with you all. So I'd be honored to have your continued support, thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Brown.

Excellent, well thank you so much, it's good to see you and it's been a pleasure for the last year really getting to know you more and learn more about your leadership style and just the work that you're doing with the port and so I'm happy to make a motion to go ahead and advance the appointment.

Thank you, Council Member Fife.

Yes, just my knowledge through the chair to Elvina Wong with your acumen around environment, our work around crematoriums in East Oakland, truck traffic through West Oakland and Chinatown, and just your broad depth of knowledge around environmental issues is so critical to bring to the Port of Oakland. And as I work through amortization of polluters in my district and working on continuing to green and clean the port, it's essential that you remain in this space to bring your unique experience, your youth, and just your expertise in very specific issues to this body. So I've been happy to recommend your position and I second this motion to make sure that you stay in the place that you're at and continue to grow and learn for the Port of Oakland and for the city.

Thank you, seems like we, I support you. We have a motion and a second.

Thank you for that, and there was a motion by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Fife to approve item five, to approve item five, which is the reappointment to the Board of Port and Commissioners to the July 7th City Council Agenda on Consent. On roll, Council Member Brown. Aye. Council Member Fife. Aye. Councilmember Ramachandran. Aye. And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number five was approved with four ayes to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council Agenda on Consent, noting that the agenda has been taken out of order, so we are now moving.

There were no public speakers?

No, not for this item.

There's so many people asked.

Yes. No, I do not have But we do have speakers for the next item which is item s6 as stated by council president Jenkins we are taking the agenda out of order so we're now on item s6 and I will read that into Record but before I read the item into record there is an urgency finding that we need to be stated

um before we hear this item so is staff present to state the urgency finding yes of course through the chair just the urgency is that the upcoming deadline to appear on the november ballot is coming up and so a hearing now and then scheduling for july 7th is recommended in order to make that deadline

Is there a presentation?

We do need a motion for the urgency finding before we call the item into rec. Sweet. So moved.

I'll second it.

And there was a motion by Councilmember Fife, seconded by Councilmember Brown to approve the urgency finding on roll. Councilmember Brown?

Aye.

Councilmember Fife? Aye. Ramachandran? Aye. Chair Jenkins? Aye. The urgency finding was approved with four ayes. I will now read the item into record. Adopted resolution submitting to the voters at the November 3rd 2026 general municipal election a measure to amend OMC charter real property tax transfer tax to amend the exemption of foreclosures transactions and an advisory measure of whether the increased revenue from the amending the city real property transfer tax or include certain foreclosure transactions should be spent for the purposes 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 the voters at the general municipal election and making appropriate sequel findings I have two speakers for this item

Yes.

I'd like to make a motion to adjourn into a special meeting of the council upon the presence of, yes, Council Member Wong and Houston. Second.

there was a motion by council member fife seconded by council member brown to adjourn in a special meeting at the with the presence of council member wong and houston on role council member brown hi hi hi ramachandran aye and chair jenkins aye and the uh at 10 43 this meeting is adjourned into a special meeting at the presence of council members and i am complete councilman

Okay, all right. First of all, I want to thank, before we get into it, I just want to thank the finance team, specifically Nicole, Bradley, Carmen, Jose, and Hui in terms of developing out the materials that you're seeing today. I also want to thank Malia at the city attorney's office who worked with us to craft this measure through quite a few iterations. uh... and i also want to recognize since i provided a larger are lengthier presentation last time to my colleagues really explaining some of the impetus around this uh... there are a number of questions last time that were really around the revenue the potential for revenue from this measure, so this is really what today's presentation is aimed to answer. I also want to note that today's measure is nearer than what I last presented. I'm requesting a motion to also forward this resolution to the full council as amended, which includes the removal of the supplementary advisory measure, which I heard my colleague's feedback. That means that no additional costs would be incurred from a second measure, And that means there's no endorsement of some of what I discussed around shelters or encampment closures. So this is now purely before you a revenue measure. It closes a loophole on these foreclosure transactions. It does not raise any tax rates and it simply closes an exception. And an exception that is really for primarily corporate capital. That exception says that foreclosure transfers That foreclosure transfers is particularly deed in lieu Transfers are exempt from paying the real real estate transfer tax that any other You know transfer would pay so your person that's just buying a home and they purchase a home They are paying this real estate transfer tax that these entities are not I would also argue that there's a case for urgency foreclosures are currently surging there are signs of the recessionary environment and And we know that this will accelerate foreclosures in the coming years, but that is anticipated to tail off. And the reason I do present it this before this body now is if we do wait until 2028, we risk missing a window for this cycle. I also want to note that San Francisco is actually moving to act before this window closes. They're moving forward with the November ballot measure. And their estimate, and this was done by their comptroller's office, is actually estimated to generate over $200 million in revenue over the next three years. In Oakland, we do not have exactly the same real estate market, of course. We don't have as much commercial real estate in particular, but this shows that there is real and significant money behind this concept. I ALSO WANT TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE INFORMATIONAL PACKET THAT YOU PROVIDED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO FLAG RIGHT OFF THE BAT THAT THIS WAS WHAT YOU SEE HERE AND IF YOU GUYS GOT SOME OF THE MATERIALS. THERE'S A SPREADSHEET, AN AMENDMENT AS WELL AS A SPREADSHEET. So one of the staff reports included basically a projection that was based off of a limited sample through 2024, just February through July. So it's a very limited data set. There's an important gap that did not account for something called deed in lieu of transfer. These are really actually the highest revenue generating transfers available. And so my team throughout the last week actually worked to identify a set of these types of deed-in-lieu foreclosure transfers. These are basically, just to be clear, because we do not have the kind of data scrapers that are available, you know, by real estate, you know, by the real estate industry. So this is based off of essentially what is in just the headlines, okay? So what is posted in news articles, things like that. uh... so i want to just note in front of you these are unedited excel sheets provided straight from finance we pulled out some of the top line numbers just to display above here on the screen you can see for example in two thousand twenty four there were Again, four headlining, four headline generating transfers. What you see on the right side of the screen is essentially the tax revenue that could have been generated, the low end to the high end. So just taking 180 granted example, on the low end, and finance is happy to discuss their methodology, $750,000 generated from that revenue, but on the high end, $4.3 million. So this is, again, just over the last two and a half years. We identified 16 different transactions happening over the last two and a half years. And I think one thing that is really noteworthy is that if you look at 2026 in particular, you can see that revenue is accelerating. This speaks to the increases happening in foreclosures in this current year. This is just half a year alone. This only reflects foreclosures that are happening through June of this year. What is not actually included is the Clorox building that is currently, that made a recent headline that is also going into foreclosure. And using just, this is the low end, the sample of these properties, you can see that this goes in 2024, 5 million, 2025, 6 million, but in just half a year alone, January through June, It could have been something as high as $16.49 million. I actually had another slide, but it's not included in this particular presentation. This matches up what we're seeing in terms of the headlines. We are seeing foreclosures at a six-year high. This was noted by the Wall Street Journal. Other headlines that are more local that note this rise in foreclosures and fire sales. There was just what happened in East Oakland, another office just went into foreclosure. I also want to just discuss some of the amendments very quickly. So here are the amendments. You guys have them before you. So as I stated, we're removing the advisory measure, so it's just simplifying what was presented last time and I want to thank colleagues for the feedback. Second, I do want to add affordable housing conversion and exemption. I had noted last time that. because we're seeing all these, especially in the downtown core, right? People are not returning to the office. And so we're seeing a lot of these major commercial buildings go into foreclosure. So part of what we're doing with this tax policy is to try to incentivize conversion into other uses that would actually be beneficial to oakland so um there was interim shelter permanent supportive housing uh health care as well as we're just adding affordable housing as an exemption based off some feedback from some discussions with stakeholders and so if you get a foreclosure transfer just explain it and you turn into affordable housing this would not apply to that specific transfer the third thing is we're giving city council the authority to establish future exemptions by ordinance That way, if there are other types of exemptions that we identify as a body, we don't have to restart the ballot measure process. We can do this just by ordinance. Fourth, this was just an advice from the city attorney's office. We are going to be moving to exempt all community banks, not just California-based ones. This was based off of some law that's on the books that, Malia, thank you for identifying that. And the fifth thing is that the measure is going to, it just adds a line that this measure determines the value of consideration at fair market value. And this is drawing directly from San Francisco's structure and their own measure that they adopted. Which I do want to note that the measure adopted by San Francisco was broadly supported by both moderate and progressive supervisors in San Francisco. Okay, and with that, I'll turn it over to any questions you have for myself or to the staff members who helped develop this proposal.

Thank you, partner. Let's go to public speakers.

Thank you for that. As I call your name, if you're here in chambers, please approach the podium. If you're participating online, please raise your hand if you signed up for item S6. I have Robert Apotica and Dan Kalb. We will take those who are participating in person first, and then following that, we will take those who are online. So again, if you signed up for item S6. Thank you.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Robert Joe Apodaca. I've been a resident of Oakland for the last 40 years and started speaking here in 1975 when the Community Development Block Grant was the big issue and there was no room in the council to address those issues. At that time, I was chairman of the Fruitvale Community Development District Council. I have quite a bit of experience in housing and housing-related issues, both as an operator and as a builder, and also as providing finance. Just briefly, I started my first student housing program in Berkeley in 1970, and that operation that's for ethnic minorities is still in operation after 56 years, and it's a nonprofit organization now owned by the Green Lightning Institute. Subsequent to that, I was part of a, I founded a nonprofit and wanted to prove a concept that poor people can be homeowners. So in Fresno County, we built 10 townhomes and sold them to families who were earning less than 30% of AMI, and nobody had defaulted during that time. One home has been sold, and all those families have a lot of equity. Lastly, I was part of McLaren, Vosser, Emsick, an architect here in town that did its first project. Durant Square Signature Properties is the owner. Subsequent to that, we designed the Fruitvale Transit Village, and then across the street from here, a couple blocks from here, the firm did uptown apartments. So I know something about housing and financing. Homelessness is the number one priority in the state. I know it changes from time to time. It's a high priority here in Oakland. And what I do know is that over the past 10, 15 years, the state has spent over 37.

I apologize, Robert, your time is up. Thank you so much for your comments.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I will now call those who are participating online, Zoom speakers. I have Dan Cobb. One moment. If the clerk can unmute Dan Cobb. There we go. Dan, you are unmuted. You may begin.

Thank you so much. Good to see you all. Let me just... to see you all um i just wanted to express my uh thanks to councilmember wong for putting this forward uh we passed uh measure x back in 2018 uh to create a progressive real estate transfer tax and uh this kind of uh in summary specs closes a loophole in that and within the limits of state law this provides more opportunity to bring some more revenue in and make sure the transfer tax that already exists in local law applies to these additional transactions within the confines of state law. So I urge support for this. I would look forward to voting in favor of this when it's on the ballot in November. And I urge the council, the rules committee and the council to put this on the ballot so the voters can decide. And I think this is a smart measure and I ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments. That concludes our speakers for item S6.

Colleagues.

Oh, excellent. I can go ahead and get started. Thank you so much, Council Member Wong, for your work on this item. And also calling attention to what San Francisco is doing as well. I was reading the article really quickly, so thanks for highlighting that as well. One of the questions that I did have the opportunity to ask you during our one-on-one where you were explaining this a little bit further and I was kind of continuing to do a little bit more research on this and just hoping you can answer this question because, you know, I guess I'm thinking about larger apartment buildings and really wanting to ensure that we're protecting renters from any undue costs and even just building maintenance. And so I guess this larger question that I have is, have you been able to identify or call out any domino impacts of this kind of foreclosure tax that would go to a new owner of a larger apartment building, whether it be since they're going to be kind of eating up that cost, will that trickle to the renter in some way? What will happen to maybe if the building needs maintenance? And yeah, I just wanted to see if you were able to get any feedback on, and I think I even asked this question to you when we met. I'm just curious if you had any more additional insights on that.

Yeah, absolutely. And I just, in the development of this policy, did consult individuals in both the Housing Action Coalition group, as well as the Turner Center, as well as the various YIMBY groups that we all know about, including East Bay for Everyone. Essentially when it comes to the question, which is a really great question I want to flag that in terms of whether those costs could be passed down to renters because essentially this this cost in terms of the transfer tax would ultimately be born on the acquiring of not the entity that's going into foreclosure. This is how this will actually protect people that are the tenants from going into foreclosure. And I would argue this too, because what is happening with foreclosures is that right now, since this is a loophole, there is no disincentive for the banks to pursue a short sale or to prevent a foreclosure from happening in the first place. There's no tax friction. So when that happens, actually people are more likely, the tenants are more likely to get evicted, if that makes sense, in the case of a foreclosure. And so one could argue that actually by applying this policy, we're actually creating some friction that can hopefully create, it's not gonna solve, I don't wanna pretend like it's suddenly gonna prevent evictions, but that it'll create some disincentives from pursuing the foreclosure in the first place from the bank's perspective.

Excellent, thank you so much for that. And I also know that the report states that the council may by ordinance establish other exemptions to the tax imposed by this chapter. What other exemptions would council want to establish?

I'll give an example. One thing that we've heard feedback from is that there are, for example, like nonprofits that want to acquire, for example, like a foreclosed home or a small foreclosed, you know, multifamily unit property and actually turn it into affordable housing. It's these things that I think I've added that amendment, that way we can consider as a body other examples of where we actually, this is an opportunity to create tax equity and actually ensure that some of the entities we want to actually ensure have a tax benefit compared to say maybe a corporate entity that we can add those in as a body.

Thank you.

And just sorry, just to close off my comment, I've heard about, for example, creating community land trust, things like that. So all of that, I think, are items or things that we should consider to add in as exceptions.

Council Member Ramachandra.

Thank you. I think the intention is good and something that obviously I would want to support in theory when it comes to getting more revenue for the city and closing loopholes, but I think this presents too many loopholes the way it's presented right now that I don't really have confidence that that the banks that were able to get this exemption in the first place and other predatory lenders would not be able to use one of these exemptions. So can you explain the history of why the foreclosure exemption has the RITT, the foreclosure situation has an RITT exemption in the first place and when that happened?

Yeah, that's a good question. Does anyone from finance have that history? I actually don't have that history. Oh, go ahead, Malia.

Malia McPherson with the city attorney's office. I think your question is on the legislative history of the city's RETT, is that correct? And the foreclosure exemption that's here. This exemption that currently exists has been there for as long as I can tell. It wasn't recently added. It wasn't addressed with the Measure X amendments. It mirrors the exemption under the state documentary transfer tax. but is not identical in the same way that other local jurisdictions have an identical exemption for foreclosures that mirrors state law. As you'll see with San Francisco's proposal, and has been clarified with recent case law on charter cities' ability to have different transfer tax compared to state law, we are not bound to follow state law when it comes to foreclosure exemptions.

Thank you. I mean, I'm really wondering from the author who wrote this, why did this first come into effect in Oakland, not the state? And why do you think that this is going to be any different? I mean, anyone can call themselves a community bank, unless you're specifically listing a public bank, which is different. Affordable housing, any bank can come in and say that. they want to build affordable housing and then switch it up. What are, what are the guarantees that this won't happen again? And that's why I'm asking about the history, which as the author, I would anticipate you'd know.

On the banks, there's actually a specific definition set at federal law that caps, uh, like to be defined as a community bank, you need to actually have assets under a certain dollar amount. You can't, you can't like, for example, Chase or Goldman Sachs or any of these kinds of large institutions, Could not just decide to define themselves as a community bank. There's an actual definition I don't know if Malia you're able to comment on that, but I think I would need to double-check my notes But I think this was established under dot Frank that there's a specific definition of community bank that must be used You can't just say I'm a community bank What about affordable housing the second part of my question through the chair is?

any of those same traces, Bank of Americas, et cetera, could say they're building affordable housing and then not actually fall through to get this exemption. So once again, you're creating more loopholes and the banks are never gonna pay. So what are the protections for that?

So the way that the transfer tax is currently structured is actually the, you get a refund after the fact, and you would need to provide evidence. And I mean, there are strict AMI rules, right, in terms of affordable housing. You can't just say, I'm building affordable housing. You have to provide evidence that you're meeting the AMI requirements that define means-tested affordable housing. And I would actually invite my colleague, because we're adding this language around exemptions, if this is something important to you, which I agree with, that we need to close these loopholes, that I'm happy to work with you to really put in language. This is the reason, actually, why I wanted that ordinance to make it broadly speaking because i recognize that some of this is happening um we came across this loophole uh later in this year that i'd like that i'd like to have and so i wanted to ensure this language would be added that way we as a body could really figure out as a collective in removing as many loopholes as possible, since I agree that is a risk. I also think it's not a reason not to pursue the closing, what we know to be in place, right? When we can just continue to refine and add even more language to truly seal off loopholes in ways that corporate entities seek and are able to escape our tax system.

Thank you to the chair that didn't answer my question I appreciate the invitation to work on this but we are at the eleventh hour before the meetings in July which if this was to go through this would need to pass so can you explain to me what's currently here in the legislation that would prevent a bank from stating they're going to create build affordable housing and not build it and again I would also like the definition of a community bank.

Sure, absolutely. Malia, are you able to comment on the definition of a community bank? And then perhaps someone from the finance team, since we have existing exemptions for low income households, different things like that in our existing tax structure, how is finance able to validate those things as it currently stands?

Malia McPherson with the City Attorney's Office. I'm happy to comment on the definition as it's been provided in the legislation. I do want to note that the policy directives in terms of the scope of this legislation has been set by the council member's office, so it is not our office that has been recommending certain exemptions here. The community banking organization is as defined by the Federal Reserve. And as the council member noted, that current definition has an organization that has a total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion. And under the draft legislation, the transferee to qualify for this exemption would have to provide a sworn certification for that qualification. Similarly, for the affordable housing exemption, as drafted, the transferee would have 36 months from the date of recordation of the transfer to submit a refund supported by documentation of the affordable housing use.

Thank you. So to clarify, you would submit a refund for, you'd pay the RATT, and then you'd get a refund if you actually build affordable housing in three years?

Yeah, and that was, we did that on advisement from finance. They said that this would be most administratively simple for them to do. So that is the reason that we've built it in in that particular structure.

Thank you. I have reservations on this community bank. I mean, a $10 billion company is pretty big. And even if it excludes our conventional big banks, that leaves a lot of room for predatory lenders, foreign entities, et cetera, to come in and not pay the tax again. I imagine there are quite a few subsidiaries of some of these big banks that would qualify under that as well. So I'm deeply uncomfortable. with that, and if I were to support, consider supporting this, that would definitely be something that I would need redefined in this legislation.

Sure, absolutely. I do want to comment just...

I'm not completed with this statement through the chair.

Go ahead.

And so the next issue that I have here is the numbers. Again, I know that 2026 more foreclosures but in the city administrators report the estimate for the amount of money that the city would bring in is notably less in the on a review of 30 transactions. The annual revenue is estimated to range from 400,000 to a million depending on the transfer type of timing, but what you showed was. of much higher numbers. Again, obviously I'd welcome any money coming to the city, but 400,000 to a million is very different from the multimillion dollar proposals you said. So why the difference?

Yeah, I'm happy to answer those questions, and they're all excellent. So first of all, on the bank size, I know 10 billion sounds like a lot. Just so everyone is aware, in terms of how the Federal Reserve actually defines different bank size, under $10 billion is a community bank. 10 billion to 500 billion is actually regional and mid-sized banks. And above $500 billion are large and global financial institutions. So to give a sense of the total asset size of some of the largest banks, JP Morgan Chase has $3.64 trillion in assets, okay? This is why $10 billion is actually a community bank. Bank of America has $2.6 trillion. Citibank, $1.7 trillion. Wells Fargo, $1.7 trillion. So that's the scale that we're looking at when it comes to large banks and why it's important, especially because community banks are actually those that are most likely to provide loan opportunities to those who have maybe lower credit scores, things like this. This is why I thought it was important to have that carve out. But we're happy to- you know we can also i'm open to removing that exemption and having a longer discussion around that if that is important the other thing um just to note on the the revenue side of things and if anyone from finance wants to come up but what we had discussed and what we've clarified is that Those finance estimates excluded something called deed in lieu of foreclosure. So it is the deed in lieu of foreclosure transactions that actually stand to generate the most revenue. And so we had clarified that with finance. That's why you see that those low projections, those are merely just the foreclosed, like pure foreclosures. A deed in lieu of foreclosure, just to explain what that means, is somebody is transferring the note sale without technically going into foreclosures. That was not understood by finance at the time that they provided that $400,000 to $600,000 annual revenue estimate. And so then we provided finance those 16 examples again that we just saw through headlines So if anything in understates in my opinion anyways, I don't want to Again, I would prefer to have a more conservative estimate So what we identified is 16 different transactions that occurred over the last two and a half years and that's where you see the the larger amounts and Yeah Thank you.

So is it that again? I I am very concerned. I specifically, in my comments through the chair, mentioned that I know this $10 billion would exclude the big, big banks, obviously, but that doesn't mean that those medium-sized ones aren't any less predatory. So that would be a major issue for me, wanting that exemption. And again, if since your legislation is proposing that council can give additional exemptions, you know, if there's situations that come up at the time, So be it, but that is something I'm definitely concerned about. I'll reserve the rest of my questions for the next council meeting. Thank you.

all right if there's no other further comment um i think at this time i would make a motion to move this to the full body so that the full body can weigh in is there a second yes i will second all right there was a motion by council member brown seconded by council president jeep

Yes, one more clarifying question. I knew I had one more thing. So now that the complementary advisory resolution isn't there anymore, the money would go to the general fund to clarify with the...

yeah yeah and i was my intention with that is we could then as a body again decided through a budget resolution then how the general funds would get spent i heard the feedback from everybody which uh last time which there was clearly concern with adding a second advisory measure took that into consideration i thought that actually made sense that's would be an expensive measure to put on that would be ultimately non-binding so

It would go into the general fund and Emily if you want to add to that Through the chair Nothing to add on that because the amendments were not read into the floor I do want to make sure that there's clarity on what's going to be amended and what if the motion could just include direction from this body for the city attorney's office to incorporate these edits when it goes to the full council so my understanding is the amendments are to add affordable housing to subsection f1 to delete the headquartered requirement in subsection f2 to modify the exemption in subsection f4 such that that exemption is replaced by city council authority to add other exemptions and then to add catch-all language that would amend the value of consideration for these foreclosure-related transactions to be based on the fair market value for administrative Finally, given that the scope of this legislation has changed significantly since it was introduced, my recommendation is that the body allow our office to reformat and revise the legislation so that whatever goes to the full council is just clean. We're going to have one day to get a final ballot measure. if this goes to the seventh. And right now, it has two measures on it. We need to have clean legislation on the seventh.

Council Member Ramachandra.

Thank you. I don't feel comfortable. I've been trying to sift through all of the attachments. And apart from the PowerPoint, I don't see the amendments in writing. And I would prefer to hold this in committee to next week so we can see the amendments in writing and then vote on it in the actual language.

TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, ARE YOU AMENDABLE TO THAT?

JUST A COUPLE POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT GOING ON, AND I WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT WITH THE AMENDMENTS, BUT I ALSO HEAR WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RAMACHANDRAN IS ARTICULATING, AND SO I JUST WANT TO, I GUESS THROUGH THE CHAIR TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, do we have enough time to make these needed changes and if holding in committee is what would be recommended?

So through the chair, what I heard, there was a proposal to hold this in committee until next rules committee, which would be July 2nd. So whether this is forwarded today or on July 2nd, it could go to the July 7th council meeting either way. There's no council meeting before July 7th. So in either case, it could be forwarded to the July 7th council meeting.

Okay, excellent, and so through the chair to Council Member Ramachandran, is that your preference? Yes. Okay, so I'll amend my motion.

So in all transparency, I don't necessarily wanna hear this again. I told Council Member Wong that I would support it coming out of rules, but most likely I'm not gonna support it when it comes to full council. So if we hear this in this body again, are people going to support it coming out of rules? If not, we should just put it on the pending list and move forward.

I support it. My original motion was to move it to the full body, so I think that's clear. Gotcha. But I'm also just trying to also honor what my colleague wants as well.

Thank you. And just to explain, I hear you, Council President. I just, I've been looking through each of the attachments and I don't see the amendments. I know we just heard it verbally, but I'm a visual person. So I need, if we're putting, this is a complicated issue, and if voters need to be clear about what's going forward. I need to be clear what we're passing. So I cannot, I don't know how I would vote next week seeing everything clearly laid out in writing rather than the verbal presentation and then the quick PowerPoint. So I can't say how I would vote next week once I see it all in writing, but I'm a visual person and I think voters are as well. If I'm doing my due diligence to really vet proposals, I would need to see it in writing if that is an option to move it to next week. And if not, I respect that, my colleagues' wishes as well.

That's fine. So Council Member Brown accepts Not an amendment, but you're going to change your motion to forward this to next week's rules?

Yep.

All right. I'll second it.

So the motion as it stands is moved by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Councilmember Jenkins as amended, as the amendment stated on the record by the city attorney to be forwarded to continue to the July 2nd Rules and Legislation Committee. Is that the amendment? Is that our amendment? Okay. With that motion on roll, Councilmember Brown?

Aye.

Councilmember Fife? No. Councilman Ramachandran? Aye. And Chair Jenkins?

Aye.

Item number S6 is approved to be continued to the July 2nd Rules and Legislation Committee meeting with three ayes and one no, Councilmember Fife. That now takes us back to the original order of the agenda. As the agenda was taken out of order at the beginning, we have already dispensed with item number two. We will now move on to the new scheduling items. Item number 3.1 is adopt a resolution confirming the mayor's reappointment of Ann Griffith and Lynette Jungley to the Oakland Housing Authority to be scheduled on the July 7th City Council agenda on consent. Item 3.2 is a resolution confirmed, excuse me, my apologies, back to item 3.1. There is a rule 24 to be read, and that is to fill the vacancies of the OHA to ensure a continuous quorum. Item 3.2 is a resolution confirming the mayor's reappointment of Helen Bullock to the Wildfire Prevention Commission. And this also is being requested to be scheduled for the July 7 City Council agenda on consent. And the Rule 24 reasoning for this is to fill the current vacancy for the WPC to ensure continuous quorum. Item 3.3 is receive a presentation from the AC Transit on current agency deficit projections and associated financial outlook, including potential service adjustments and workforce reduction scenarios and impacts. And this item is being requested to be scheduled for the July 7th City Council agenda. On consent, there is a Rule 24 that needs to be stated on the record.

as an update to that uh i want this off of consent so that we can have a presentation rule 24 there um we need to bypass committee so that this is heard by the full council so that the full impacts of ac transit service cuts and potential cuts is heard by the entire community thank you for that and just confirm um this item is now going to non-consent correct

Thank you for that. Moving on to item 3.4, adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount of $35,559.68 from the state of California tech side press fund for fully reimburse the city's cost of implementing the connected scenarios seniors live stream project which is designated to reduce barriers to participation in senior center programming by bringing real-time classes wellness activities and community events directly into the homes of older adults especially those from marginalized and historically and underserved communities for the period of July 8th, 2026 to June 30th, 2027. And this is to be heard on the July 7th, 2026 City Council agenda on consent. There will be a rule 24 needed to be stated on record for this item before the staff present.

Hello, I'm Jason Wang with IT department. The city of Oakland was notified on June 16th that the Oakland Connect Senior Livestream Project, a program designed to break down longstanding barriers to participation in senior center programming by bringing real-time classes, wellness activities, and community events has been selected for an award. Once grant acceptance paperwork is received from the state of California, the city will have a 14-day window to formally accept the grant. Immediate action is required to ensure that the city is able to accept this grant and proceed to project implementation without losing the funding opportunity.

Thank you for that. Now moving on to item 3.5, adopt a resolution 2.1, commercially rename the Telegraph Avenue between 18th Street and William Street as OSA Way in honor of the Oakland School for the Arts and authorize the installation of a plaque honoring Oakland School for Arts on the 18th Street and Telegraph Avenue, 19th Street and Telegraph Avenue, and William Street and Telegraph Avenue pursuant to the policy and criteria established by the resolution. And this is being requested to be heard on the July 7th city council agenda on consent. We will need a rule 24 stated on the record for this item.

Thank you. The rule 24 needed for this item is that ceremonials go straight to council.

Thank you so much for that. We are now moving to item 3.6. Adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to accept inappropriate grant funds in the amount up to $750,000 from the Bay Area host committee and to execute a grant agreement for such funds. to pay for the oakland police department security support operations for the 2026 fifa world cup and this item is being requested to be scheduled for the july 7th city council agenda on consent i will now read in the rule 24 for this item opd received the award letter at the end of may 2026 or in may for the grant to obtain reimbursement the city administrator needs to sign the agreement with the Bay Area Host Community Committee OPD needs to submit and all necessary documents including the signed agreement by July 17th to receive a full reimbursement July 7th Council is the only meeting OPD could schedule this item to in order to meet the deadline Now reading item 3.7 is a ordinance calling and giving notice to the holding of a general municipal election on November 3rd, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the city of Oakland proposed ballot measure and requesting consolidation of the city of Oakland's general municipal election with the statewide election to be held in the city of Oakland on November 3rd, 2026 and authorizing the city clerk to take all actions necessary to hold the municipal election and this is being requested to be scheduled on the July 7th City Council agenda on non-consent and I will read the rule 24 which is the consolidation ordinance typically goes straight to Council item 3.8 is a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of Elizabeth Lake as interim city administrator into authorizing the mayor to execute an employment agreement Elizabeth Lake on behalf of the city of Oakland and this has been requested to be scheduled for July 7th City Council agenda on non-consent I will read the rule 24 the mayor's office requests that this item be heard directly by the City Council pursuant to rule 24 due to the time-sensitive need to ensure continuity of administration authority before the expiration of the current city administrator administrative leave on July 15, 2026. Confirm of the interim city administrator at the July 7 City Council agenda meeting is necessary to avoid any gaps in executive leadership and operational authority.

Council Member Ramachandra.

Thank you. I would like to hold this in committee for one more week on the scheduling list.

Any objections? Be held in committee. Council Member Fife.

I would like to hear what the time considerations are for our bond market considerations. That was what was presented to me as the need to expedite this item. So if that could be articulated so I have a better understanding, that would be helpful.

Bradley. Thank you, Council President, to the Council President, to Council Member Fife. In order to interact with the bond market, and we are in the market for a transaction for your temporary revenue and anticipation notes to pre-fund our CalPERS liability and provide ongoing cash flow needs with the CalPERS item looking for gross savings about $5.5 million over the course of the coming fiscal year. we do need to have an interim or permanent city administrator appointed to sign documents, including your preliminary official statement on the 8th of July, your official statement documents on the 15th and 16th, and your closing documents roughly around the 28th of July. So all of those documents will require a interim or permanent administrator confirmed by this body in order for us to sign off on those, otherwise we cannot access the market in that process.

So if we move forward with this action today for an interim, what is the proposed time? Well, maybe through the chair. I don't know if this is a conversation for the mayor's office. What is the proposed timeline for the interim status? Because it's my understanding that we're doing a nationwide search for a permanent.

I will defer to the mayor's office to answer that question.

Is it afternoon now? Good morning, Council. Council Member Phyfe, to your question, the intent is to appoint Betsy Lake to interim for a six month window.

Does that align with the search for permanent? Is that happening concurrently?

Yeah, the mayor is in touch with HR to explore looking at search firms. One of the things that's in the resolution, and I'll let City Attorney Richardson weigh in on this, is it is an interim appointment for six months. However, that does not preclude the mayor from appointing someone in that window if someone is identified.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you.

So I just wanna state publicly that these two things should have nothing to do with one another. Council's ability to confirm city administration should have nothing to do with the bond market. Just wanna state that publicly, and I'm in agreement with Council Member Ramachandran in holding this until next week. If Bradley's timeline is right, we have another rules before the July 7th council meeting. What's that urgent?

So through the chair, just to note that this is being proposed for July 7th, you could hold it in committee, but then at that point to make it to the July 7th meeting would require an urgency finding to place it on the supplemental agenda.

Council Member Fife.

Any special meetings that might be necessary?

I hope not.

Because I will not be there.

Me neither.

Okay. I do wanna state that it sounded like what we heard from our finance director is that these two things are connected. And so just to get ultimate clarity from Director Johnson, is it statutorily required that we have this position in place? Is there a legal requirement in order to address the bond needs of the city?

So my understanding and conversation with our bond council is per the charter in order to actually authorize signing these documents which commit the city to debt arrangements, per our charter and how it interacts with our bond market, we need an authorized official in a permanent or interim capacity approved by this body in order to sign them. And that my understanding is, and I have the city attorney here if he wants to weigh in further, is that there's no other official aside from a confirmed city administrator who would have the authority to sign those documents, inclusive of myself and the mayor, that neither of us could substitute in that space.

I would like to hear from the city attorney.

Ryan Richardson, city attorney. So yes, what Director Johnson just said is correct. The closing for these bonds is currently scheduled for the week of July 14th or 13th. During that week is when Administrator Johnson's resignation would become effective and we would not have a city administrator that was couldn't had been confirmed by the council and in consultation with bond counsel Under our charter there would be a lack of clarity that we had somebody who was duly authorized to sign these documents We've looked at whether Other city officials could sign, but in the charter, the person that's designated as the chief financial officer with explicit authority to manage the city's financial affairs and with explicit authority to bind the city by contract is the city administrator. That is the person that has always signed the bond documents that will need to be signed on the 15th and 16th.

So I need to understand from the rules committee what is the problem. Because this sounds very straightforward from what I'm understanding from our city attorney and our finance director that this is absolutely critical. So according to the constitution of the city of Oakland, what I'm hearing, the council that I'm understanding, is that we're in a situation that we need to move this item forward.

So to Council Member Five, I still say these two things have nothing to do with one another. By charter, we have the ability to confirm a city administrator. That's by charter, right? We do not have to confirm the individual that is presented to us. So we're talking about bonds. You could put another name on there. You could put another name for a city administrator on there, right? So you don't have to say yes because we are going to the bond market. There are other options. Council Member... What are the other options? Council Member Brown. Oh, other options? Yeah. There's other people.

Okay, thank you so much for the dialogue. I kinda had the same question of what is the purpose of holding it in committee for one week versus presenting it to the entire body? Because this is a scheduling item.

More time to do research to see what other options are available.

Yeah. I'll say I think this needs to move forward. I don't I don't understand who we could put in place in a week that would Satisfy the requirements that are needed I understand There may be concerns with the individual but that is the individual in position at this particular time and from what I'm understanding from the mayor's office that there will be a process of to go through to confirm a permanent individual. But at this time, and I swear in Oakland, there's no short of crises or emergencies that push us up against deadlines. This feels like one of those times. And so I do not want to play with the bond market. It should not have to be related. But in this particular moment, what I'm hearing from the people who do this work every single day, that it is. So in the best interest of the city, in this time-sensitive moment, I want to move this forward to the full city council. I have a lot of personal opinions, lots of them, but in what's in the best interest of the city of Oakland, in order to sign these documents that I'm hearing from our finance director need to be signed, I would like to move this forward.

Council Member Brown?

Awesome, likewise, I would like to move the item forward.

And I remain, I will restate my preference for this item staying in committee.

So it just seems we're deadlocked.

Can the mayor break a tie?

No.

I'm kidding.

So this item will stay in committee.

So to clarify item 3.8, we need a motion to approve

move this item keep this item committee or do we need to move forward with not scheduling that any clarity on what we are if there isn't a vote by a majority of uh the committee members present to do anything then it will then nothing will happen so it won't be automatically scheduled to the next rules committee and it won't be forwarded just for clarity

Council Member Houston.

Someone would have to bring it back for another, for scheduling.

Let me share this, excuse me, thank you, through the chair. This is what happens when you rush to judgment on Justin. This, we wouldn't even be here.

Council Member, is this related to scheduling?

I had to say what I had to say.

Thank you.

And so for clarity with there being a tie this item, there would be no action taken on item 3.8.

I would like to request through the chair for the director of finance to answer what happens if we don't sign these documents. And then I would also like to understand from this body what we are looking forward to getting a week from now that would satisfy the concerns that are being listed today.

through the Council President and Council Member Fife, if we do not have a interim or a permanent city administrator in position to sign documents on the three dates I mentioned related to the POS, the OS, and the closing documents for this transaction, We have to terminate the transaction. The estimated gross savings from the transaction is about $5.5 million in terms of our PERS costs, which we would not be able to pre-fund, and might have other impacts in terms of our cash flow management. So this is something that we've been counting on. order to realize some savings and address an ongoing budgetary issue that's been that's sort of the rationale for this transaction which you guys have approved and there's a final approval of a document coming to you also scheduled separately on the 7th related to your official statement release but if you do not have a person sitting as interim or permanent at the times of the signature we can't move forward with the transaction

So what does this communicate to our bond committee? Because I'm sure they're watching.

Yeah. And I'll be clear about, I've heard the council president about separating what the item is. The financial concern is not about the person but it is about having a person in the interim or permanent space that is confirmed by this body and therefore authorized under the Charter to sign the documents it is I am NOT candidly super worried about this to address your concern about the fact that this body is doing its due diligence or going through its process for appointment it is a legal matter that on those dates we need to have a signature a signatory that's authorized to sign that is the context as our city attorney has mentioned as well that is our concern your your process the fact that we're having a conversation i don't see as particular thing this would be a normal legislative process that you might go through i don't think it's probably talking that we're talking about this is where having a spirit discussion and you guys are doing your due diligence in that space well let's just get spirited away um through the chair to our city attorney what is the what are the options that we have within the next seven days to have an alternative individual

in this space? What can we do if our charter already outlies what the process is? What are our options?

So through the chair, The appointment process for any city administrator, including an interim one, is that the mayor puts forward their appointment and the council has to confirm it. So in order to, as Director Johnson said, in order to close these bond documents and have a city administrator who is duly appointed, where we've dotted all our I's and crossed all our T's under the charter, and to do that on the 15th and 16th of July, that the process that I just described would have had to have taken place. Somebody would have had to have been put forward to the council by the mayor for appointment and confirmed by the council for an interim appointment with a start date of July 15th so that that person would be available to sign the bond documents.

So what I'm hearing is that the mayor would have to put forward and for this body to move forward. So council president I'm asking is your request that the mayor put forward an alternative proposal for an interim within the next seven days to bring forward to or potentially schedule to the full city council in order to move this forward or that we don't have anyone in place. I wanna understand what the path forward is.

Yeah, I don't think that's the actual choice, right? And so I just want another week to do due diligence, right?

So the mayor doesn't- Explain to me what due diligence is.

Due diligence, maybe talk with the mayor, talk with the city administrator, talk with the city attorney. I would like to see, do my due diligence and see what other options are available.

And so I wanna wrap this up. So through the chair to the city attorney, we can do that in terms of other options to fit inside of this timeline?

through the chair, as Assistant City Attorney McCauley explained, if this could be, a new item could be scheduled, in theory, the mayor's office could put forward a different item for an appointment next Wednesday to schedule it, and then have that appear at rules on Thursday. If this rules committee does want to make a decision next week to forward something to the July 7th council meeting, there would need to be an urgency finding because it would be going on the supplemental agenda for that meeting. So technically those things could all happen.

Okay. I just don't think that's good. But if that is the will of the body,

every week we come to rules and there's some type of rush on why we have to make a decision, right? So this is a power that's vested in us by the charter, right? And it's something that we have to take seriously. This person is going to be running the city for maybe the next six months, right? So I'm just asking for another week and we will move forward, but I just wanna do my due diligence on behalf of my constituents. city attorney, city administrator. I wanna talk.

Thank you for the discussion. So item 3.8 will have no action taken at this time. That now takes us to item 3.9. Receive an operational report from the city attorney's office regarding the cases the city attorney's office has brought pursuant to the Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 1.10. And this item is being requested to be scheduled for the July 9th Rules and Legislation Committee agenda. item 3.10 is a resolution to accept inappropriate grant funds from the oakland fund in an amount not to exceed 200 2 500 for a comprehensive independent audit of the city of oakland's technology systems this item is being requested to be scheduled for july 14th finance and management committee agenda Item 311 is receive an information report on the one-year update to the fiscal year 26 through 30 Oakland Roadmap to Physical Health, a plan to address mid- and long-term city financial challenges. This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th, Finance and Management Committee Agenda. Item 311. item 312 receiving information report from the city administrator and the 2025 through 28 citywide strategic plan one-year update this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Finance and Management Committee agenda item 313 is a resolution authorizing this council president to submit a response on behalf of the City Council to the 2025 2026 Alameda County civil grand jury report and this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Public Works and Transportation Committee agenda item three fourteen is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to finalize an execute a contract purchasing agreement with them uh... metropolitan transportation commission clipper in support of the west oakland universal basic mobility pilot Project financial incentives in the form of 1,000 prepaid clipper cards at a total cost of $400,000 providing the necessary spending authority for the agreement waiving small small local business partners participation ship requirements and waiving advertising bidding in request for qualification proposal competitive selection requirements this item is being requested to be scheduled on the July 14th 2026 Public Works and Transportation Committee agenda Item 315 is receive the 2025 Safe Oakland Streets Annual Information Report from the Department of Transportation in coordination with the Oakland Police Department, the Department of Race and Equity, and the City Administrator's Office to be heard on the July 14th, 2026 Public Works and Transportation Committee agenda. Item 316 is adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to accept an appropriated grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the amount of $750,000 to use grant funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the installation of 15 two-port electric vehicle charging stations to be located at the City Maintenance Service Center, 7101 Edgewater Drive, Oakland, and to adopt appropriate CEQA findings. And this is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th, Public Works and Transportation Committee Agenda. Item 317 is adopt the following pieces of legislation. One, a resolution authorizing the forgiveness of a city loan to Athena MT LLC of up to $2 million in outstanding principal plus all accrued and unpaid interest and fees. and a city revolving line of credit to Sauvage Offshore with a final outstanding balance of $1,500,000 plus accrued and unpaid interest in fees for the Foothill Seminary Point retail project, each contingent upon the sale of the transfer of the project to a qualified purchaser and making this appropriate sequel findings and 2 in ordinance authorizing the forgiveness of outstanding in future rent balances in the amount of up to $40,000 for seminary point LLC pursuant to a ground lease with the city contingent on the sale or transfer of the property to a qualified purchaser and making a sequel findings this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th community and economic development committee agenda. Item 318 is receive an information report on the inventory of the city-owned properties analyzed for the use as in-room shelter, safe parking, and vehicle storage pursuant to the encampment embankment policy. This is being requested to be scheduled for the July 14th Life Enrichment Committee agenda. Item 319, the HUD Continuum of Care programs. I believe staff is here to read a title change.

Thank you. Chrissy Love, Human Services Department. Resolution 1, accepting, appropriating, and authorizing agreements for the receipt of Continuum of Care, COC, Supportive Housing Program Renewal Funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, in an amount not to exceed $5,650,302, and two, awarding and or amending the grant agreements to the nonprofit agencies for the terms and in the amounts identified in Table 1, using COC funds and other state and local funds. Three, authorizing the city administrator to identify backup funding from state and local sources that have been appropriated for homelessness programs and to reallocate or reallocate such funds to the programs identified in table one to continue operation through the grant terms in the event COC funding is delayed and four, accepting and appropriating additional COC funds that become available for the same purposes within both FY26-27 and FY27-28, and authorizing the city administrator to amend the agreements to adjust the grant terms and amounts within the limits of the awards.

Thank you so much. And this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th, Life Enrichment Committee agenda. Thank you so much, and we've been to item 320, adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to enter into a professional services agreement with Bright Research Group Inc. for training in capacity building services for the Department of Violence Prevention from September 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2028 for a total contract amount not to exceed $513,000 to be scheduled for July 14th, Public Safety Committee agenda. Item 3.21 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to apply for, accept, and appropriate Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds up to $324,324 for the fiscal year 2025 grant award period of October 1st, 2025 through September 30th, 2028. to support department-wide training, equipment, and technology and operational enhancements to be scheduled for the July 14th Public Safety Committee Agenda. Item 3.22 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to enter into a professional services agreement with Roto-Craft Support Inc. to provide helicopter maintenance services to the Oakland Police Department for a period of July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2028 for a contract total of $1,700,000 with an option to extend the contract for two additional years to June 30th, 2030. for a total contract not to exceed three million four hundred thousand dollars in waiving the local small business enterprise program requirements and this is being requested to be scheduled for july 14th public safety committee agenda councilmember houston

Yes, through the chair, I have a comment about 318. Why are we bringing it July the 14th, talking about properties that's owned by the city when that's the date that the EAP is gonna start being implemented? Because Council Member Fife, her recommendation was to hold it back for three months when it was implemented or when it was approved on 4-14, which gave us enough time to look at things, right? And I was blessed yesterday to go to, or to attend the Commission of Homelessness with Omari and Mr. Cupid on the 24th, which was yesterday. And I think this should go on the same day. I think that 318 should go to full council to let them know what's going on on 7-7-26, along with bringing this commission This PowerPoint, this powerful PowerPoint that Council Member Brown, Council Member Fife, Council Member Giannani, you guys need to see this PowerPoint. What was done before is implemented, because it's going to be implemented on the 14th. And now we're talking about properties. We're talking about properties that needed to be brought up prior within those three months so we can address these RVs that's going to be removed. Council Member Giannani, President Jenkins, Council Member Brown. We talking about this, bringing this on the 14th, the day that the EAP, I was the author of the EAP, that it's going to be brought on the 14th. Let's bring it to full council so council knows what they can do and we can move this and find out these properties that need to be addressed when these RVs is being removed. Because if you look at this, 23 encampments was closed in council member Fife's district. You need to see this stuff, Councilmember Five, you need to see, this needs to come to full council on as an emergency before, because let me share this with you, President. If we bring this to the 21st, that'll be seven days after the account and abatement policy is passed. It's being implemented, right? And then if we wait from the 14th when it's being implemented to the next council meeting, which is on 9-15. That's 63 days before the, while it's being implemented. This needs to be addressed, and that need to be put on the seventh, President. We gotta look at this. We're about to start closing down encampments. People are gonna be unhoused. We ain't gonna have no place to put them. And we talking about it on the 14th, the day that it's gonna be done. How's this city run? Ran.

So Council Member Houston, I think you are saying two things. There's a presentation that you want to go to the next council meeting, is that correct? 7-7-26, President, yes. And then what you also are advocating for is the city-owned properties You're advocating for it to bypass committee and go straight to council?

On 7-7, so we understand what's happening. Because if you look here on 3-18, it says that on July 14th, life enrichment. That's the day that they gonna start implementing it. Council Member Fife?

Okay, okay. So I'm gonna go to Council Member Brown, but Council Member Fife, you're gonna have to weigh in as the chair of LEC. Are you okay with 3-18 going straight to full council as opposed to going to committee? So Council Member Brown, then Fife.

Excellent. All I was gonna say is that in alignment with the policy in the 90 days, I think the department was just kind of following what the policy outlined, because we gave that timeline, but I'm, if the chair of LEC is amenable, I'm okay with it going to full council.

Council Member Fife.

This is not my item. I did not schedule this. This is a city administrator's item to identify what the inventory is of vacant parcels. It will have absolutely no bearing on what we do. in terms of housing people, moving RVs whatsoever. We've done this inventory in the past. I have two city-owned parcels in District 3, neither of which are large enough to do anything around homelessness. So I don't see this item as being impactful at all. And I've seen the PowerPoint presentation that you're talking about. This will offer, as most of what we do here, no real solutions to the crisis that my district is being impacted by. So if we're talking about moving things off my agenda for a day that's already impacted, I have no problem with that. And at the same time, I do want to follow the protocols of going through committee before items are heard, but this is an informational report. They're gonna just tell us what the vacant parcels are, which can be read in an info packet. Again, I don't see how this presentation is going to do anything substantial to move the needle on homelessness, but that is my perspective.

Through the chair. Yeah. Beg to differ, Council Member Pfeiffer. Let me share with you why. In District 711, 73rd Avenue was a site that was shut down by the city because they ran out of funds. I have a relationship from the state, county, to the city. It's already been put in place that if that city property was up and ready to be take in individuals from their RVs, the county would fund the person, the provider, So this could have been done, but then Justin left and then it fell all apart, right? But let me share what happened with that Councilmember Fife. That same lot, 711, it's not in my district, it's in the president's district. We work together like two peas in a pod. So let me share this with you. The city put $500,000 into that property. When it was closed down, Council Member Giannani, guess what happened? No security, no nothing, right? It was damaged, it was vandalized, telephone poles were cut down, all the wires was pulled out, so that $500,000, Council President, is gone and wasted. And after we took that walk, and I was with Cupid, Justin, I'm not sure if you came, Council President, but it's more damage now. So the city already spent $500,000, now they gotta spend another $300,000. So what I'm speaking is, I beg to differ, because let me tell you why. If it would've been adjusted and brought together, monitoring the lot that the city owns in that three months, we would add individuals on that property, Council Member Fife. So what I'm saying is, is that somehow we gotta come together and be organized because I didn't agree with what you did, Council Member Fife, with the three months, but after I looked at it and I analyzed it, I appreciate that, because it gave the city enough time to be able to make things happen, which it didn't. And the property in your district right there, Council President, is a prime example why it didn't happen, right? And it's not your fault. It's not you, I'm not saying you. I'm saying that this county right now said that they would provide the provider if it was up and running, if we would have had it monitored, we would have people from your district, Councilmember Fife, from all across your district on that. It's 47 spaces in there that could be utilized. So what I'm saying is this. Let me tell you this to you. I got it now, President.

Okay, can we just move this?

Again, I said my schedule for life enrichment is impacted. I'm not necessarily concerned with an item being moved off my agenda. In fact, it frees up more time and space for me to manage my agenda. But I have to ask if the materials are available Um, and because I, I assume that whatever would be presented for an info report would need to be, um, ready for the seventh. So that is a question because we can't just say, move something and make it happen. The city moves slowly. And I want to say that the city staff who do the cleanings and closures asked for 120 days, not 90 days. This was not something that I just came up with. I was asked by our homelessness team, um, to, to extend the time so they could put in standard operating procedures. This was not my. SOPs. Yeah, they wanted to create SOPs so that the fire department, the police department, the homelessness team would all be on the same page about how to operationalize the EAP. So I wanna be absolutely clear, this came from staff as a request. Not sure why they didn't say that to you, but that's what they asked me for, because my district is the most impacted. And this is an info report where the information on the vacant properties are available and have been available for years. If y'all want me to move Homeless interventions to other parts of the city outside of District 3, happy to do that. But right now in my district, we don't have space. That is city owned. And I want to make that absolutely clear. Anything that we're doing for real solutions, I want to move that forward. And that's not what this is.

Okay, so council member we got to move forward so 318 it will do a rule 24 as We're gonna move this to full council with the EAP set to take place It's important that we hear this report in here where there are spaces to put people that might be displaced. Thank you, Council Member Houston. For the other item that you're requesting, you need to come back to for item four and request that it come back.

Item four?

Item four.

Trinity will be here.

Okay.

Okay. Right. Through the chair, from the city administrator's office. I'm not sure if staff is gonna be prepared to finalize that report for tonight's print. So I'm waiting to hear back from staff if they can present and also have the report ready, unless you want this to be.

Let's leave it as is. If they are ready to present, we'll 28 it.

To council member Houston.

So we're going to leave it as is until we find out if the department is ready to present.

thank you so noted item 318 will be as is we're going back to item 3.23 was the next item in order and that is a resolution accepting the Department of Violence Prevention 2026 apricot annual report in approving the amended apricot use policy as approved by the Privacy Advisory Commission on the June 4th 2026 and this is requesting to be scheduled for July 14th Public Safety Committee agenda Item 3.24 is a resolution accepting the 2025 annual reports for the following City of Oakland Police Department surveillance technology, automated license plate readers, crime lab biometrics DNA analysis technology, forward-looking infrared, live streaming transmitter, unmanned aerial systems, forensic logic cop like crime tracer Cop links gives me try and cracer pin register and sell you bright and making Department regarding whether the city should continue to use each of these technologies and this is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Public Safety Committee agenda item 3.25 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator or designee to enter into an operational area agreement with alameda county to participate in an intermediate level of the State emergency services organization that will comply with the state of California standardized emergency management systems for the period from ratification through December 31st 2035 this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Public Safety Committee agenda Item 3.26 is a resolution authorizing reimbursement from the city, from the Council Contingency Fund for the Council Member Rowena Brown and Council Member Janani Ramachandran's travel costs to Anaheim, California for attendance of the 2026 California League of Cities Annual Conference and Expo from September 23rd through the 25th. 2026 to be heard on the july 21st 2026 city council agenda and the rule 24 is that the reimbursement items traditionally go directly to the full council Item 3.27 is a resolution in support of Assembly Bill 1588, vehicles, sideshow enhancement. This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 21st. City Council agenda on consent, and we will need a Rule 24 from staff on this item.

That's Council Member Longstaff here. that'll go to next week's rules 318 been informed from the city administration that this can the report is pretty much done and it can go straight to full council on the 7th so noted item 318 the report on inventory of citywide properties will be scheduled to the July 7th City Council on consent or non-consent non-consent

so noted going back to for clarity um item 3.27 um councilmember wong's item resolution in support of ab 1588 we will continue this to next rules are we yes Item 3.28, receive an information report on the Oakland storm drainage master plan finding and the assuring opportunity to explore storm drain fee, vowing to help build a resilient storm drainage. system drainage to reduce flooding, reverse impacts of deferred storm drainage maintenance and achieve clean waterways. This item is being requested to be scheduled for the September 22nd Public Works and Transportation Committee agendas. This now takes us to the recommendations from the committee's June 23rd Finance and Management Committee agenda. The first item, 3.29, I will read in the short titles only, and this is in FIN Solutions LLC Professional Services Contract. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to forward this item to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent. item 3.30 from finance on june 23rd the oakland peafords investment portfolio as of march 31st 2026 the committee received and filed this item in committee item 3.31 amendments to the ordinance number 12187 cms the salary ordinance for various classification and exemptions the committee approved the recommendations of staff to afford this item to the july 7th city council agenda on consent and that consists of both pieces of legislation of item 3.31 July 7th on consent, excuse me, all three pieces of legislation, wait, five pieces of legislation for that item. item 3.32 also from the finance and management committee amendment to the ordinance number 12187 salary ordinance for a council member city attorney and city auditor the committee approved the recommendations of staff and for the item to the july 7th city council agenda on consent this now takes us to recommendations from the june 23rd public works and transportation committee starting with item 3.33, which consists of two pieces of legislation. It's contracts with the United Rotary Brush Corp and Owens Equipment Sales. The committee approved the recommendations of staff and to forward both items to the July 7th City Council Agenda on Consent. Item 3.34, the contract asphalt and concrete disposal service for in-house paving operations. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent. Item 3.35 is the Construction Contract Award for Highway Safety Improvement Program, Cycle 10, 14th Street Safety Project between Mandela Parkway and Brush Street. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to July 7th City Council on consent. Item 3.36, the Broadway Streetscape Improvement Construction Contract Award. The committee approved to withdraw and reschedule this item to the July 14th Public Works and Transportation Committee Agenda. That now takes you to the recommendation from the July 23rd Community and Economic Development Committee Agenda. the item 3.37 is the Costco exclusive negotiating agreement the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7 City Council agenda on consent Item 3.38, the bid annual reports and approval of assessments payment. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded July 7th on consent, and that consists of both pieces of legislation. Item 3.39 is the 2026-2027 annual action plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council agenda as a public hearing. item 3.40 is sale of the 319 chester street the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the july 7 city council agenda on consent we now move to the recommendations from the june 23rd life enrichment committee item 3.41 is the ofcy year-round program service term award for 2026 through 2028 the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the july 7 city council agenda on consent this now takes us to the recommendations from june 23rd public safety committee Starting with item 3.42 is a temporarily restricted street closure from International Boulevard. The committee approved the recommendations of staff and forwarded the item to the July 7th City Council agenda as a public hearing. Item 3.43, the sideshow penalty ordinance. The committee approved to withdraw and reschedule this item to the Public Safety Committee agenda pending list under no date specific. Item 3.44, ratifying the City of Oakland's sanctuary city policy. The committee approved as amended the recommendations of staff and to afford this item to July 7th City Council agenda on consent with the following amendments. On pages six and seven of the legislation under um civilian immigrant detainers and notification requests striking sec from section one exempt as provided in subsection two striking all of section two and opd employee may continue to deter detain an individual in response to a civil immigration detainer for up to 48 hours after the individual becomes eligible for release if the continued detention is consistent with the state and federal law and the individual meets both of the following criterias striking from section 3 exempt as provided in subsection 4 striking all of section 4 an opd employee may respond to the federal immigration officers notification request if such response is consistent with the state and federal law and if the individual meets both of the following criteria the individual either has been convicted of a violent violent felony in seven years immediately prior to the date of the notification request or two has been convicted of a serious felony in the five years immediately prior to the date of the notification request or three has been convicted of three felonies identified in the penal code sections or government code sections or the other than domestic violence arising out of three separate incidents in the five years immediate prior to the date of the notification request. And a magistrate has determined that there is a probable cause to believe that the individual is guilty of the felony identified in the penal code section or government code sections. or other than domestic violence and has ordered the individual to answer the same pursuant to the penal code sections. In determining whether the response to the notification request has permitted by this subsection D, an OPD employee shall consider evidence of the individual's rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses a public safety risk evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigation factors to consider include but is not limited to the individuals ties to the community whether the individual has been a victim of any crime the individual contribution to the community and the individuals participation in social services or rehabilitation program and again this item was requested to go to July 7 City Council agenda on consent with the amendments and the last item from public safety on june 23rd is item 3.44 45 and it's a report of a recommitment process for chief of police and this item was received and filed in committee and that concludes your new scheduling thank you for all that reading that was a lot that was all right let's go to the public commenters Thank you, and we will now call it folks. We have two people who signed up for item three at this time. I have Blair Beekman and Rajni Mondal. I will take those who are here in person first. Good morning, Rajni, or afternoon.

Good afternoon, Rajni Mandel, District 4. I have a few comments on upcoming agenda items that share a common theme, implementation and long-term investment. First, I'd appreciate a status update on the flock community camera program. Last December, Council approved continuing the flock contract and expanding it to support the community camera program. Yet six months later, it appears the new contract still has not been executed. In the meantime, PAC recently completed its review of the existing program, and the annual report showed the technology is being used responsibly with documented audits, mandatory training, strengthened data sharing restrictions, and no reported policy violations. The updated policy also expands authorized investigations to include illegal dumping. So my question is simple. Where does the community camera program stand today? And if Council approved this expansion six months ago, what is the implementation timeline and where is the bottleneck? Public safety technology is only effective if projects move from approval to execution in a timely manner. Second, I support bringing forward the helicopter maintenance contract because OPD has to maintain the aircraft it has today, but that helicopter, I think, is more than 20 years old, and we should be asking what comes next. Is there a long-term replacement strategy? Are there newer or more cost-effective options, such as fixed-wing aircraft, that could provide similar capabilities at a lower lifecycle cost? More broadly, this isn't just about the helicopter. Oakland has aging police vehicles, fire apparatus, public works equipment, and technology systems across city government. I also support the mayor's proposal for an independent technology audit, but I hope it leads to a citywide technology modernization plan and not just simply another report. Although Measure E did not pass, these infrastructure needs haven't disappeared, and I hope the city begins discussing a comprehensive capital replacement strategy and explores whether existing capital funding sources, including unused bond proceeds were legally permissible, can be used to modernize fleet and technology across city departments. These aren't glamorous investments, but they are essential to delivering reliable public services. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We'll now take the next speaker, our Zoom speaker. I have Blair Beekman. You may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, Blair Beekman. Good afternoon. I wanted to speak on three plus items, 3.41 to 3.45, 3.24, and 3.37.

Yeah, okay. So with 2.46, yeah, thank you.

About to begin with item 3.44, this Oakland City Sanctuary Plan. Thank you that you approved it a couple days ago. Thank you to Council President Houston, who he's got a lot to weigh. and decided to go for our ideals and work out practicality from our ideals. Good luck in that effort. It's from the sanctuary city policies. There's a lot of comment. What are we going to do about the future of flock? Thank you a lot for the previous public comment, who I think really spoke nicely. Where is the program at at this time? FLOC has the ability to add a whole bunch of new technology without oversight, without council or PAC oversight, I think. That's a question. Can we work on that? And can we really start working on, you know, we're supposed to be working for the future of a new AOPR vendor besides FLOC in the next 18 months. To start having those conversations now in public, I think would help with morale. I think it would be positiveness and not fear. And I I think we should start doing that stuff now to get a community involvement in what is the future we're building. We're building a future without war, basically. I think we should start doing those things now. So good luck in those efforts. I also wanted to address Costco issue. You know, as much as we can't live there, it's been deemed, but we can place food and products. and that's safe. I think that needs to be questioned. Good luck in having the conversation about it. Thank you that Councilperson Fife said, just as long as we can have a community conversation, that's what's key. And thank you for her words on that.

So important.

For item 3.5, 3.45 is the recruitment process for chief of police You guys keep complaining that we keep going through police chiefs. It's because our public has a deep concern. And our public has a great review system to make sure our process is in place, that we have best practices going on. And administration's angry about that. And you guys are creating new legal systems to take that away from the public. We have a very good system of checks and balances in place. that administration needs to respect more and understand that dynamic and relationship and learn how to work with that better. We go back and forth. I hope we come to a conclusion and the importance of public participation. And that's how we hire a new police chief who will stay by believing in the public, a certain important part of the public. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. That concludes our speakers for item three.

Thank you. Council member five.

I'm only speaking to this because I heard a woohoo from the gallery over there about fixed wing aircraft in 2023 council member Kaplan at the time and I brought forward an info report requesting information on the costing for that item it is something I plan on bringing back to the public safety committee so I just wanted to state that for the record.

Thank you, Council Member Fife. All right. 3.2, there was a rule 24 read in. 3.3, there was a rule 24 read in. 3.4, there was a rule 24 read in. 3.5, there was a rule 24 read in. 3.8, we'll go to next week's rules. No action. 3.8, no action. 3.27 will go to next week's rules. 3.18 will go to July 7th non-consent council meeting with the rule 24. And 3.19, title change. I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Second.

And that was a motion by Councilmember Ramachandra and seconded by Councilmember Brown to approve item three as amended on roll. Councilmember Brown? Aye. Councilmember Fife? Aye. Council Member Ramachandran. Aye. Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number three is approved as amended with four ayes. That now takes us to item four, which is our last item since we did take this agenda out of order. Item number four is review of the draft minutes, excuse me, of the draft agendas pending list in the City Council Committee Meetings and this in your package you have your committee July 2nd Rules Committee your pending list and July draft July 7th Council and Rules Committee anything from the administration No changes from the administration sweet

Through the chair, to the body, just regarding the July 2nd Rules and Legislation Committee, just wanted to note, because this body earlier in this meeting continued item S6 to that agenda, that's technically gonna appear on the, what's the supplemental agenda for Rules Committee, so when you hear the item at Rules, it will require an urgency finding, just stating that on the record so that the clerk can make that notation on the agenda.

Thank you. District 7.

good afternoon through the chair trinity hall from the office of council member ken houston um we are requesting to place the emap presentation that was presented during the commission on homelessness on 6 24 2026 on the city council meeting on 7 7 2026. We're gonna use a rule 24. The EAP did pass on 4-14-2026 and its implementation is set to be 7-14-2026. We're seeking to bypass committee so that the full council can hear the presentation. And if this presentation is heard any time after, it will be seven days after the EAP implementation. And then we also run the risk of running into council recess and run the risk of not having a council meeting until 9-15-2026.

Thank you. I'll roll 28. Thank you. Let's go to the public speakers.

Sorry, apologies. We don't have any public speakers for this item. We just have one for open forum, which is next.

Yeah. So we need a motion.

second that was a motion by council member ramachandran apology second by council member brown to approve item four as is on roll council member brown aye council member fife aye council member ramachandran aye chair jenkins aye item number four is approved as is with four eyes That now takes us to open forum. I have one speaker on this, which is Ms. Rajni Mandal. Good afternoon.

Rajni Mandal, District 4. I'd just like to make a brief comment about public participation. At the last Public Safety Committee meeting, several speakers were heckled and intimidated while giving public comment. And yesterday, there was also shooting just a couple blocks from City Hall in broad daylight. Many Oakland residents are not activists or members of organized groups. They have jobs, families, other responsibilities, and they're less likely to come to City Hall if they don't feel welcome or don't feel safe. And that's why Hope Council continues to place real value on emails and e-comments. The recent election show that Oakland has an engaged electorate, but not everyone can attend meetings in person, but their voices are just as important and deserve to be heard. Thank you.

Thank you, that concludes our open forum speaker.

Thank you, this meeting is adjourned.