Why The Bratton / Wasserman Proposal Should Be Adopted By Oakland’s City Council

Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall, Oakland City Council’s Public Safety Committee will vote on whether to forward to Council a proposal to add $250,000 to the City’s public safety consulting contract with Strategic Policy Partnership.  This is the Robert Wasserman, Chief William Bratton proposal that we discussed here.  We strongly encourage Oaklanders to come and support this proposal.

The proposal is starting to run into opposition based on two arguments that either misstate or misunderstand what the proposal is:  The first argument goes something like this:  Oakland has already spent, is already spending or going to spend millions on outside Occupy investigators, on a a Federal Court monitor, on a Compliance Director, why do we have to spend money on this as well?
(more…)

6 Comments

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

Make Oakland Better Now! congratulates our elected or re-elected City Council members Dan Kalb (D1), Lynette Gibson McElhaney (D3), Noel Gallo (D5), Larry Reid (D7) and Rebecca Kaplan (At Large).  Running for office is very hard, and we recognize that no one would do it who didn’t sincerely  want the best for our City. In that spirit,  we wish our newly elected and reelected officials the greatest success in making Oakland the city we all want it to be.

Now that the election is over, it’s time for even harder work to begin. The question we hear from all parts of  Oakland is this: what do these election results mean?  Most people seem to think we will see an increase in civility among council members, and that’s a good thing.  But it will take far more than increased civility to make the changes Oakland needs.  City leaders need to do something they haven’t done in many years:  they must align their actions with their oft-stated beliefs in public safety, budgetary responsibility and government transparency.

(more…)

6 Comments

Make Oakland Better Now! Questions All City Council Candidates

Oakland has 25 candidates running for city council in this November’s election. Seventeen are competing for  open seats in District 1, 3 and 5, two are challenging the incumbent in District 7 and four are challenging the incumbent at large. (If you aren’t sure which district you live in or who your council member is you can find out here.)

One of MOBN!’s missions has always been to empower Oakland voters, and nothing is more powerful than knowledge. So with the help of many MOBN! members and blog readers, we’ve developed a candidate questionnaire designed to gauge city council candidates’ views on some of the critical issues facing our city. We’ve asked the candidates to respond by September 12, and will post the answers as quickly as we can. Once posted, the MOBN! board will ask for your thoughts as it considers endorsements.

The questions we are asking appear right after the jump.

(more…)

6 Comments

Transparency and Accountability in the Oakland City Council: Examining the Mid-Cycle Budget Process

While much of Make Oakland Better Now!’s recent advocacy has involved public safety and budget issues, two of our key values are transparency and accountability.  To us, these mean keeping City Hall’s inner workings open and honest. Now that City Council is in its August recess, we want to wrap up our discussion of the recent mid-cycle budget process, which ended in a dispiriting and opaque action by the Council.

As those who follow City Government know, Oakland operates on a two-year budget cycle.  When things are going smoothly, the City makes “mid-cycle adjustments” once, after the first year.  Other times, as in the 2009-11 cycle, it may seem as if the City is making adjustments every month.

This January, the City made significant adjustments in its budget to reflect the loss of redevelopment money after the California Supreme Court upheld legislation eliminating redevelopment agencies.  Then, in May of this year, the Mayor and City Administrator  proposed further adjustments that focused heavily on public safety and economic development, anticipated a general purpose fund revenue increase of $3.93M, and an increase in GPF spending of $3.86M, resulting in a slight net increase in the surplus.

While we noted some flaws in and questions raised by the proposal, we were generally supportive.  The administration acknowledged that the proposal did not fix all of the City’s long-term deferred expenses (e.g., pensions, retiree health care, deferred maintenance on the City’s assets), but it was operationally balanced and its emphasis on public safety and economic development made sense.  The proposals went to Council at three public hearings.  In advance of each hearing, the administration provided written reports to the public and the Council addressing questions raised by both.

What happened next?  Read about it after the jump.

(more…)

2 Comments

Oakland City Council Approves Sale of Pension Obligation Bonds

For the past two years one of the most nettlesome budget issues faced by Oakland has been its unfunded and underfunded benefit liabilities.  As recently reported by the City Administrator, Oakland presently faces an underfunded CalPERS liability (Oakland’s current pension plan) in an undetermined amount, a completely unfunded health benefit liability for retirees of $520 million (sometime referred to as “Other Post-Employment Benefits,” or “OPEB”) and an unfunded $494 million liability for the PFRS retirement plan. The latter is a police and fire retirement plan that closed in 1976, that supports about 1000 retirees and their widows, and that only has one member presently employed by the City of Oakland.  In short, Oakland has an unfunded liability of more than one billion dollars for benefits earned by, and owed to, people who no longer work here.

The PFRS obligation should be the less troublesome of these obligations, because it has dedicated funding sources – an annuity that pays about $6 million per year and a significant tax override (i.e., property tax) enacted in 1980 that generates about $60 million per year.  The annuity was purchased in 1985 and the tax was passed by the city council using a loophole in Proposition 13 that likely no longer exists.  But PFRS became more problematic in 1997, when Council voted to issue pension obligation bonds (“POBs”) and buy the city a pension holiday for 15 years.  Of course, the market failed to perform as hoped, and as reported in an actuarial report obtained by City Auditor Courtney Ruby the City fell behind projections by about a quarter of a billion dollars.  Much more information is available here, here, here, here and here.

More than a year ago, as the pension holiday neared the end and Oakland faced a potential annual obligation of more than $45 million, staff returned to Council with a proposal to “double down,” issuing still more POBs and buying another holiday.  One argument in favor, which we heard from more than one insider, was this:  “Where in the world is Oakland going to find another $45+ million?”.

With a highly unfavorable City Auditor’s report, a lambasting in the press and charges that the plan constituted “intergenerational theft,” the proposal went into hiding for a year, then returned to Finance & Management in May and back to City Council in June and July.  Much of the debate took place on June 19 after midnight.  So for those who weren’t at City Hall or watching KTOP in the early morning hours, MOBN’s communications intern Catherine B. provides a blow-by-blow after the jump.  Short version:  Oakland will issue another $210 million in POBs that must be paid off by 2026 (when the charter requires PFRS to be fully funded);  complete pension holiday for four years;  CM Schaaf’s (admittedly non-binding) resolution to impose at least some safeguards to monitor fund performance and establish reserve, which deadlocked 4-4 (CMs Brunner, De La Fuente, Brooks and Reid voting “no”) passed on Mayor Quan’s “yes” vote.

In short, Oakland has taken on as much as $100 million in future interest costs without a long-term financial plan, and, accordingly, without a good handle on its future income or future expenses.

A complete rundown after the jump…

(more…)

3 Comments

City to Consider Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustments. Here’s What MOBN! Thinks.

Like most cities, Oakland operates on a two-year budget cycle, adopted to cover two fiscal years running from July 1 through June 30 two years later.  The current cycle runs through June of 2013, which means we are half way through it.

As is typical, the city is about to start looking at its fiscal performance to date and changes in its projections in order to determine what changes should be made in the second year of the budget.  Council will begin considering mid-cycle adjustments on Monday, June 4 at 6:30 p.m. The agenda is here.

The reports containing the City Administrator’s and Mayor’s recommendations are here and here.  For the first time in recent memory, there are no recommended layoffs, closures or reductions of city services.  While there are budget overruns (the largest is in the OPD — either $8.6 million or $9.6 million), there are also some positive revenue developments.

The Administration’s proposal addresses a number of important issues MOBN! has been stressing for quite some time:  increased civilianization of police department functions,  increased police academies, and possibly  a new approach to NSA compliance.  The Administration also indicates it has looked seriously at the Los Angeles Police Department (as MOBN! did here) and hopes to bring in a civilian inspector general, which LAPD has had for more than ten years.

The administration is also recommending implementation of an “unanticipated expenditures fund,” which looks like the first, small step toward a rainy day fund, a practice MOBN! and the City’s Budget Advisory Committee have long advocated.

We have a number of questions about some issues, including the City’s use of one-time sources of income to counter unexpected expenses, the potential shrinkage of its reserve and the reasons for a number of the budget overruns.  We have raised these in our letter to Mayor Quan, City Administrator Santana and the City Council, which is available here (full text also available after the jump).  We will also plan to present those questions at the meeting Monday night and future meetings considering these changes.

To read the full text of our letter, click “Continue Reading,” below.

(more…)

9 Comments