Category Archives: City Budget

New MOBN! Guest Post at A Better Oakland

Mayor Quan promised a proposed budget would be released in March.  Instead, she issued a report telling us the City’s finances are bleak and the City has cut a lot already.  She also has a long list showing what the budget savings if the City cut 15% from every department.  But there isn’t much in the way of a plan for those cuts, or for anything else.

In fact, what the Mayor has released isn’t a budget at all, and doesn’t contain much of anything in the way of real solutions.  So MOBN! has proposed we give the mayor a do-over.  Read about it at A Better Oakland.

What Happened At the MOBN! / EBYD Meeting — The Short Version

Many thanks to the guest speakers at Sunday’s event, City Council Member Ignacio de la Fuente, City Attorney John Russo and City Auditor Courtney Ruby.  Thanks to everyone who gave up a Sunday afternoon to address Oakland’s critical budget issues, and a special thanks to those who were attending their first MOBN! event.  We hope to see and hear from all of you in the future, and we welcome your feedback.  And, particularly, we urge you to join us at the City Council’s Finance and Management Committee meeting, Tuesday, February 22, 11:00 a.m., City Hall, Dunakin Hearing Room. At that meeting, we will be presenting on two of the subjects discussed on Sunday.  If you are there and want to stand with us, please see us outside the hearing room between 10:45 and 11:00 a.m.

Here is a quick recap of the decisions made, followed by a discussion of some overarching themes from the meeting and videos of the presentations.

Decisions Made / Positions Adopted By the Group

  • Police and Fire Retirement System:  Make Oakland Better Now! urges the City to make the actuarially-required PFRS payment in the coming fiscal year, from the tax override reserve/surplus if necessary, and to examine all charter amendment and other options for reducing the cash flow impact of this obligation.
  • Rainy Day Fund:  Make Oakland Better Now! supports a charter amendment instituting a rules-based Rainy Day Fund, similar to that proposed by the Budget Advisory Committee.
  • Budget Reform:  Make Oakland Better Now! will promote adoption of performance based budgeting and budgeting for outcomes.

Overarching Themes From the Speakers

Although stated in different ways, the three elected speakers seemed to agree on this:  Change will not come from City Hall.  Reform to City government requires outside pressure from organizations like MOBN! and EBYD, and will ultimately require reform to the City Charter.   City Councilmember de la Fuente urged those in attendance to take a hard look at Charter changes, stating that there was no other way to accomplish reform.  City Attorney Russo lauded MOBN! and EBYD for their strength on policy, but said “I urge you to become political” in doing the work to accomplish changes to the City Charter.  City Auditor Ruby argued for a non-Charter-based reform, but a dramatic reform nonetheless:  implementation of the City-Stat leadership strategy, with measurement of outputs and immediate departmental accountability.

Next Steps

Several of you approached board members after the meeting and expressed interest in working with us more closely.  We thank you for that;  you will be hearing from us, and we look forward to working with you.  In the coming months, we will continue to urge Oakland’s leaders to go slow on the proposed PFRS pension obligation bonds, to take a Rainy Day Fund charter amendment to the voters, and to implement budget reforms.  As we have in the past, we will continue to insist that Oakland and its Police Officers’ Association work together to find ways to provide us with cost-effective policing at sufficient levels. Oakland must treat public safety as its top priority.

Video From Sunday’s Meeting

With many thanks to A Better Oakland’s V Smoothe, here are video excerpts of the speakers.  The entire program is available here, and other excerpts are available here.

City Councilmember Ignacio de la Fuente speaks on the importance of a community group’s staying power, and how change must come from outside City Hall.

MOBN! board member Nicolas Heidorn speaks on the proposed Rainy Day Fund

City Attorney John Russo speaks on City Charter reform

City Auditor Courtney Ruby speaks on budget reform

What Is The “PFRS” Obligation, And How Should Oakland Address It?

by Nathan Stalnaker

Nathan Stalnaker is a board member of Make Oakland Better Now!  Oakland’s PFRS obligation will be on the agenda at the joint Make Oakland Better Now! East Bay Young Democrats meeting on Sunday, February 20, 2011, 2:00 p.m.  at Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church, 3534 Lakeshore Avenue (directions).  All are welcome.

Current Oakland police officers and fire fighters, like many California public employees, receive retirement benefits under the Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”).  However, before PERS, Oakland’s city charter provided for an Oakland retirement plan for public safety employees known as the Police and Fire Retirement System, or “PFRS.”  The program was closed to new enrollees  in 1976, but there are still more than a thousand retirees and their widows or widowers receiving PFRS benefits.

Under the City Charter, Oakland was supposed to contribute annually to this retirement system on a schedule that would leave the system fully funded by 2026.  However, in 1997, the City of Oakland issued $417 Million worth of Pension Obligation Bonds (“POBs”) to buy a pension “holiday,” and cover its PFRS contributions for 15 years. In so doing the City optimistically assumed market returns from these bonds would cover the costs of the debt service; the downturn in the market serves as a good reminder that decisions of this magnitude should be based on reality and reasonable rates of return.

The contribution holiday is now over, and Oakland is required to start making payments this July.  According to an analysis performed for the Auditor’s office, the course taken by the Council cost put us a quarter of a billion dollars behind where we would have been had we made the payments.  Starting July 1st, the City will have to play catch-up with PFRS by paying more than $40M.  These payments are coming due in the middle of 3 straight years of significant budget deficits and an environment of tepid economic growth.  There is no way to spin this issue in a positive manner.  Considering the amount of fat in the budget that has already been trimmed, this new expense will be especially painful.

At the February 22 meeting of the City Council’s Finance and Management Committee, City staff will recommend a solution that involves more POBs, with balloon payments in the hundreds of millions of dollars coming due starting less than fifteen years from now.  Make Oakland Better Now! believes that neither staff nor Council have received nearly enough answers to the critical questions relating to this high-risk gambit.

Pension reform asks us to consider some of the fundamental obligations of local government. For example: 1) what are fair and equitable pay and benefits for public sector employees, 2) at what point does that pay package start to inhibit the ability of government to perform its functions, and 3) to what extent is the current generation of local leadership willing to constrain the budgetary decisions of the future legislators?

What is the way forward?  MOBN! would like City leaders to consider the following questions:

1) Should financial and budgetary concerns and reforms be brought directly to the voters?  If so, when and in what form?

If the defeat of Measure X in the most recent election  is any indicator, Oaklanders are unwilling to go forward with more taxes to institutions they perceive are not open to reform.  There are many shapes that this reform could take.  MOBN! is open and willing to discuss these options with elected officials.  We are also more than happy to put our collective efforts in ensuring the passage of reforms that we agree with.

2) What signal does the City send by issuing more bonds to cover the pension obligations?

The City of Oakland is your cousin with a credit problem.  By issuing bonds, the City is admitting that our leaders are unwilling to confront the issue and intend to continue their denial.  Whatever the chosen course of action, we cannot move forward and start the healing process by issuing more bonds to cover the cost, even for the short-term. A payment holiday only delays the pain a couple of years.

The 1997 issuance of bonds put the City in the hole by  $250M.  Making the same decision now as then, especially in this weak and uncertain economic environment, seems like madness.  The bonds will most likely cost more than they are worth, only exacerbating the situation when it can no longer be ignored.

3)      Should the City amortize its PFRS obligations past 2026?

PFRS is a creation of the Oakland City Charter, which presently requires that the entire anticipated pension obligation be funded by 2026.  But the members of the plan are expected to live and continue receiving benefits past 2050.  Allowing a corresponding amortization of the pension obligation would require an amendment to the Charter.  Such a change would limit the discretion future City Councils would have over the budget.  However, it would also ease the payments the City would have to make in the present.

4)      Can Oakland Amend Its Charter In Other Ways That Reduce PFRS Expenses?

Here’s one example:  The City Charter provides that PFRS pension payments track compensation increases of current police and fire employees.  Put simply, this means that if a current police sergeant gets a raise, a retired police sergeant gets a raise.  The City’s actuaries have set the City’s required contribution to PFRS, in part, by assuming increases starting at 3.5% annually (this year for fire, in 2013 for police) and increasing to 4.5% for police and fire in 2016.

Are there other, more conservative escalators that make more sense?  What would be the effect on the expense side of the equation of a Charter amendment that changed escalators?

5)      What are all of the possible options?

City staff needs to present Council with a greater range of bold options to address the PFRS issue.  None of the actuarial assumptions used in the analysis are above examination.  No one condition in this puzzle is sacrosanct.  Significant drivers on the expense side are not set in stone.  The same holds true for factors on the revenue side (tax revenues, return rate assumptions). The options in the staff report should reflect this courageous, broad approach to its analysis of the PFRS situation.

The way forward on the PFRS issue is bound to raise ire and contention.  MOBN! is committed to advancing this issue in an environment of respect and openness.  We ask that the parties involved not engage in a financial shell game  and proceed forward with facts and honest numbers that are not manipulated for political gain. MOBN! will advocate for public policies that help create an environment of fiscal sanity in City Hall.  Fiscally sustainable government protects our interests as well as those of future generations.

6)      What Is The Big Hurry?

Does this really have to be decided before July 1, or does the City have time to look at all of its options, including Charter amendments?  The City staff report (page 6) indicates that the Tax Override account dedicated to payment of this obligation presently has a surplus of more than $76 million.  Is there a reason the 2011 installment cannot be paid from a portion of this surplus to allow the City to openly and publicly look at all of its pension questions?

Oakland is a beautiful City with great potential.  The way forward is working together and thinking broadly; not on how to protect my own interest or group, but with an eye to the whole.   If we’re pitted against one another, then we lose.

For other commentary on the PFRS quandary, see Daniel Bornstein’s recent article here, City Attorney John Russo’s article here and the City Auditor / AON special audit report here.  City staff’s report for the February 22 meeting is here.

Make Oakland Better Now! and the East Bay Young Democrats Present: Make Oakland Work Better Now! Overhauling Oakland’s Budget

In the weeks and months ahead, our Mayor and City Council will be making critical budget decisions that will have a profound impact to Oakland citizens for years to come. Join us. Become informed. Make your voice heard.

Our guest speakers will include:

  • Courtney Ruby, City Auditor
  • John Russo, City Attorney
  • Ignacio de la Fuente, City Council Finance & Management Committee Chair

Items of discussion will include:

  • Establishing a Rainy Day Fund
  • Paying for pensions
  • Instituting a performance based budget
  • Reforming the budget process, more specifically how to pay for city services in a permanent financial crisis

When:              Sunday, February 20, 2011

Time:                2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Where:             Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church, 3534 Lakeshore Avenue (directions)

Immediately following the presentations and discussions, Make Oakland Better Now! will have a brief business meeting, as required by MOBN!’s Articles of Association, then informal cocktails at Easy Lounge,  3255 Lakeshore Avenue.

Fact Checking The Mayoral Candidates’ Positions, Part Five: Public Works

By Jennifer Inez Ward, Contributing Editor, Oakland Local

(Editor’s note: Oakland Local and Make Oakland Better Now! – MOBN! – have teamed up to take a close look at the accuracy of candidates’ response to an online questionnaire from MOBN!. We want to know if candidates are being truthful and accurate in their responses, or are they veering from facts and offering opinion without any solutions? Each day, Oakland Local will run a fact checking story on seven important questions.)

Today’s Question: How do the mayoral candidates plan to meet Oakland’s public works needs?

Arnie Fields

Fields believes “city government” has run Oakland into the ground.

“If you keep the same people in power it is only a matter of time before they run it into the ground, they have been doing a great job running things into the ground, that is why we need historic change rite here rite now.”

Fields said he will “bring that spotlight to shine on the corruption.”

What We Found: Fields provides no details on how he plans to tackle local government corruption.

Greg Harland

Harland said he believes the general fund has to be balanced in a way that meets all of the city’s needs. “Until we fix the employee compensation issue the budget cannot be balanced,”

What We Found: Harland’s response did not specifically address the question regarding public works.

Rebecca Kaplan

Kaplan said under her administration, Public Work maintenance repair orders would increase.

“Engaging in repairs early in the cycle costs less than waiting for a road (or other public infrastructure) to get into worse condition,” she wrote.

Kaplan, a former AC Transit board member, said she will aggressively seek outside funds for public works, and will work with agencies like AC Transit and the Metropolitan and County Transportation Commissions to identify funding for road repair in regional transportation funds.

The councilmember said she agrees with many recommendations in a report issued last year on  increasing the city’s general fund contributions to the Public Works  Department.

Kaplan cautioned that she would, “seek significant public input before proposing new taxes.”

In addition, Kaplan said she will tap Alamada County vehicle registration fees, and will implement “coherent and effective maintenance and planning”.

Kaplan’s office will also make sure the city’s redevelopment agency is budgeting adequately for infrastructure needs in connection with the plans.

And, as mayor, she wants to implement cost-saving strategies, “such as use of recycled asphalt and having our asphalt locally obtained (to avoid wasted time of repair crews driving out of town to obtain materials).”

What We Found: Kaplan’s public transportation background shines through in her response to this question. The plan is detailed and ambitious. Nevertheless, she’ll have a bumpy road ahead.

First, even with innovative cost measures, the city’s public works department is in a world of hurt. In a recent report, the department said it’s more than $400 million behind in repairing city streets.

Second, Kaplan’s regional transportation agencies have their own challenges; MTC has been accused in the past by both AC Transit and others of focusing too much on rail, and less on supporting bus service. AC Transit meanwhile, is struggling with serious financial problems.

Any new tax proposal for improving Oakland streets will have to garner significant support from residents who may feel overwhelmed with continuous tax proposals.

Don Macleay

Macleay said serious budget  and strong oversight of the city’s hiring practices should be part of the discussion during the mayoral race.

The report on Hiring Practices should also be part of our discussions when electing our next mayor,” he wrote.

Macleay said budget reform for the city needs to be developed before tackling public works.

“I am not sure how we can deal with our infrastructure problem without a reform,” he wrote. “If we ever get to the point that we actually will put money aside during good times and spend it during downturns in the business cycle, then we could do this in spurts about every 10 years when unemployment is high.

Macleay said stimulus funds and redevelopment funds could be used to improve public works.

What We Found: Macleay’s response did not have an specific information on how he would improve the city’s public works program.

Don Perata

Perata said because he believes the city currently has no plan in place to deal with Oakland’s crumbling streets, so that it’s hard to know the dimensions of the city’s infrastructure problem. It doesn’t help that there’s currently no director for the agency, Perata said.

“I flatly do not believe public works cannot repair and maintain Oakland streets better than it has. The crew workers themselves have straightforward, best-practices solutions to improve performance with money now allocated,” Perata wrote.

However, if he becomes mayor, Perata said he will put in place a variety of measures including having the city’s redevelopment agency pay for street, sidewalk, and storm water capital projects in redevelopment project areas; encouraging sponsors or partnerships for  Public Works’ rehabilitation of its parks and landscaped areas; and tapping the sanitary sewer fund for certain operating expenditures by Engineering Design and Construction Department / CEDA.

Perata said he is also supportive of innovative “green” technology that can address streets and infrastructure needs.

What We Found: If Perata wants to use Oakland’s redevelopment agency to shore up streets and sidewalks, he’ll have to work hand-in-hand with city council on how to redirect the agency’s funds. That may be a challenge if the agency’s budget continues to stay thin.

While Public Works seemingly has used some limited partnership programs in the past, the agency seems primed to develop more programs, perhaps with Alameda County’s public works program.

As for redirecting the city’s sanitary sewer fund  for other projects, Perata will have to go against city code which restricts such actions.

Perata is joining a growing number of politicians calling for more green solutions in dealing with municipal public works.

Jean Quan

Quan acknowledges the challenges facing Public Works and noted that the City has already passed a sewer fee to comply with an EPA lawsuit. She also touched on the backlog in road repairs and the structural deficit in the Landscape and Lighting District, which she said has not received a cost of living increase since 1993.

Quan called for a cost of living increase for park infrastructure, tree maintenance, and lighting costs; otherwise the department will continue to operate in deficit.

“We should also consider construction impact fees to help our streets and hopefully pass Prop 22 this year so the state cannot take gas and vehicle license fees; that will stabilize our street repair funding,” she wrote.

What We Found: Quan didn’t attach any numbers to her response—How much money may be needed for park infrastructure repair, for example. Quan also didn’t say what she will do as mayor if Prop 22 does not pass.

Joe Tuman

Tuman said he believes maintenance, rehabilitation, or outright replacement of sewer lines should be a core priority for Oakland.

“I believe in regular maintenance and prevention,” he wrote. “Failure to repair these problems creates a sizable amount of damage to automobiles (and bicycles!), and clearly can lead to possibilities for accidents. This serves no one’s interest.”

Tuman said how much can be spent to do maintenance and repairs will depend heavily on what decisions are made about closing the deficit in January of 2011.

What We Found: Tuman did a great job summarizing the MOBN! question, but he provided almost no details on what he would do to address the issue.

Terence Candell

Candell said that once he is elected mayor, “the measures proposed by the Friends of Candell, which have already received thousands of signatures, will go to the ballot. Then, we can afford to make complete changes and repairs.”

What We Found: There were no details provided about ‘Friends of Candell’ or the candidate’s forthcoming ballot measure addressing public works issues.

Fact Checking The Mayoral Candidates’ Positions, Part Four: Police Officer Layoffs

By Jennifer Inez Ward, Contributing Editor, Oakland Local

Oakland Local and Make Oakland Better Now! have teamed up to take a close look at the accuracy of candidates’ responses to an online questionnaire from MOBN!. We want to know if candidates being truthful and accurate in their responses, or are they veering from facts and offering opinion without any solutions? Each day, Oakland Local will run a fact checking story on seven important questions.

Wednesday’s Question: What did the mayoral candidates say about police layoffs?

Don Perata

Perata said he will find jobs within the city administrative office instead of cutting police officers. “The safety of Oakland cannot sustain firing another 120 cops. Period.”

Perata said that he will look for the support of voters to pass a tax increase that will stop any additional cop layoffs, if money cannot be found in city coffers. Unlike city council, Perata said, “the mayor can make a credible case to homeowners.”

Perata goes on to criticize Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan’s actions during the Oscar Grant demonstration and claimed neither council members have “led the front” on major issues including parking, pensions, and public safety.

What We Found: It’s unclear why voters would pass a possible tax increase if, in the past, they voted down others connected to public safety. Even if the Mayor’s office advocated a particular increase, it’s unclear voters would swallow another tax.

As for Quan and Kaplan leading on major city issues, Quan’s supporters would argue that her extensive local government background would benefit the city greatly. One supporter said Quan, help shut down the crime-ridden motel and reinvigorate the Dimond District neighborhood.

Kaplan can point to her work in trying to bring in additional revenue to the city via marijuana production and helping to lead the charge in reforming Oakland’s out-dated nightclub and cabaret laws.

Jean Quan

Quan doesn’t spend too much time in her answer outlining what she would do as mayor regarding this issue. Instead, she offers her thoughts on the current ballot measures: “It is unlikely that V will fail there will be some new revenues. I am still hopeful that BB can pass which would reduce the need for layoffs significantly without raising taxes. I do not believe X has a chance and we will immediately begin negotiations with the OPOA for pension contributions.”

Quan goes on to say that she is hopeful there can be a fair settlement on the pension issue and from there, “the city will review budget and ballot options based on midterm revenue projections.”

What We Found: There’s little in her answer that gives a clear projection of Quan’s actions as mayor on this issue.

Joe Tuman

Tuman’s answer to the question was a bit rambling (he asked if the MOBN! query was a “factual” or “normative” question). Tuman said with layoffs almost certain for police officers in January, he would focus on getting federal dollars from the Justice Department to hire “officers related to gang prevention and drug enforcement.”

Tuman also said that while he is working on dealing with Oakland’s deficit issue, as mayor, he will seek to “extend only on this interim basis to use redevelopment money to hire a limited number of officers.”

Long term, Tuman would like to bring in more police officers by employing, “an innovative policy that blends early retirement and a second-tier for new recruits.”

What We Found: In the last year, Oakland has found some success in tapping federal dollars for public safety. But going forward, it’s going to take a strong innovative mayor to get significant funds from the feds; other cash-strapped California cities are also hoping for federal help

It’s unclear if Oakland’s mayor’s office can in fact try and use redevelopment money for hiring police officers. Back in 2007, Mayor Ron Dellums proposed the very same solution to Oakland’s policing issue.

Terence Candell

Candell said that while he cannot bring back the police officers recently laid off in July,  he has put together an initiative to save the 120 police jobs.

What We Found: Candell outlined his plan in response to another MOBN! question.

Arnie Fields

Fields said that safety is first in Oakland, but he didn’t get specific about what he would do other than to say he would, “will eliminate jobs from the top.”

What We Found: It’s unclear what jobs or what city departments Fields was referring to.

Greg Harland

Harland said if the measures fail, “There are no steps by the new mayor to prevent them.” He said instead, he will “immediately begin the process of rebalancing the budget and rebuilding the force with the ultimate goal being 1050 officers.”

What We Found: Harland gave no detailed follow up plans for how he would “rebalance” the budget or how he would bring the Oakland Police Department ‘s police force up to 1,050 officers.

Rebecca Kaplan

Kaplan said she did not vote for the July police layoffs and that she believes the best way to “avert the layoffs (is) through a combination of pension reform and the use of retirement incentives as the backup plan if force reduction is necessary.”

Kaplan thinks that, “There is also significant room for negotiation with the Police Officers’ Association on the pension issue.”

Kaplan says she will also support efforts to seek federal funds for public safety in Oakland.

“I will be able to negotiate from a position of strength with an unbiased perspective;”

What We Found: As mayor, most of Kaplan’s success with carrying out her public safety goals will depend quite heavily on having a good relationship with police officers—particular on the issue of renegotiating the pension plan.

It’s unclear if Kaplan can develop a positive relationship with police as mayor or press hard in negotiations. At one point she was the subject of criticism because of her role in pension negotiations (coming from San Francisco’s police union) Also, there may be some raw feelings regarding Kaplan’s behavior at an Oscar Grant demonstration downtown in July.

Don Macleay

Macleay wants to declare a “budget emergency” if elected.

He declines to give specific examples because, “(the) real budget outcome will be the result of a series of government and union negotiations and a complicated political process with our city council, our county and our state.”

Macleay goes on to say that, “the next mayor should treat our public safety budget as an emergency on day one.”

What We Found: Macleay’s answer was vague at best.

Note: This story is a collaboration between Make Oakland Better Now!, Oakland Local and Spot.us. Thanks to Jen Ward and Michelle Fitzhugh-Craig for their work.

Fact Checking The Mayoral Candidates’ Positions, Part Two: Setting Budget Priorities

By Jennifer Inez Ward, Contributing Editor, Oakland Local

Oakland Local and Make Oakland Better Now! have teamed up to take a close look at the accuracy of candidates’ response to an online questionnaire from MOBN!. We want to know if candidates are being truthful and accurate in their responses, or are they veering from facts and offering opinion without any solutions? Each day, Oakland Local and Oaktalk will run a fact checking story on seven important questions.

Tuesday’s Question:
How Will Our Next Mayor Set Budget Priorities?

Oakland’s mayoral candidates provided a wide variety of responses. Some responses were detailed, some were brief. Some responses were ambitious and some focused on the budget problems rather than voicing detailed solutions.

Greg Harland

Harland’s response is that city government is responsible for delivering services and as mayor he will make sure Oakland delivers promised services. “It is not a matter of revenues it is a matter of management and that management has been lacking for many years.”

What We Found: Harland did not write any specific plans for making sure city departments deliver on their promises.

Rebecca Kaplan

Kaplan is looking to bring in fresh blood if elected mayor. “My first task after being elected Mayor will be to launch a genuine, unbiased, nationwide recruitment process for the new City Administrator and other key management posts (e.g. Budget Director), with the goal of hiring the best and brightest to be the next generation of City leadership,” Kaplan writes.

What We Found: The Oakland City Administrator Office carries out a lot of important functions for the city and finding the right person for Oakland will be a critical key component to ensuring Kaplan can carry through on campaign promises.

The Administrator’s office has only recently been able to settle down from the controversy that swirled around the Deborah Edgerly term in 2008. In 2009, Dellums appointed long-time confidant Dan Lindheim.

Kaplan is also looking to “reverse the downward spiral of cuts to park and road maintenance, because performing maintenance early saves costs for the long run.”

What We Found: As the new mayor, Kaplan will have her work cut out for her in the area of parks and road maintenance. According to city documents, since 2008, the park maintenance staff has been cut by 28 percent.

Currently the Public Works Department is struggling heavily in many of its sectors, including street repairs. In a recent report, the department said it’s more than $400 million behind in repairing city streets.

As a result of the city’s sharp decline in revenue, the department’s capital improvement budget this year (2010-2011), is almost half of what it was the previous year.

Kaplan doesn’t name specific funds when she declares that as mayor she will, “restore information technology funding and use that technology to implement systems (such as an online business permit and tax system) to reduce internal delays and help businesses open.

Kaplan is similarly vague when she says, “Oakland is currently subsidizing several buildings which are not being put to productive use, and I will work to shift those assets in ways to make them revenue-generating.”

What We Found: It’s unclear what buildings she’s referring to and how she would go about making them “revenue-generating.”

As part of developing a more public process with the city budget, Kaplan offered solutions like, publishing a draft budget well in advance of the adoption deadline, “in order to gather more ideas to ensure the document reflects Oakland’s priorities and explores all solutions and efficiencies.”

What We Found: This is an issue that many are eager to see tackled, as the budget process has been criticized in the past for being closed off from public participation.

Don Perata

Perata said he will give his highest priority as mayor to public safety, economic development/job creation, and Oakland youth.

Specifically, Perata said as mayor he will staff the police department to levels recommended by Chief Anthony Batts. How to pay for this? Perata said it will be, “funded through directed cost savings (including pension contributions, two tier retirement system, and cuts to non-critical city services), new revenues (including ½ cent sales tax).

What We Found: It’s unclear which employee pension contributions Perata is talking about, and for how much. There was no additional information provided by Perata on developing a two tier retirement system or what “non-critical” city services would be on the chopping block.

As for a new sales tax, Perata would especially need the help of city council in trying to push through another sales tax on a tax weary public.

Perata’s says his final component, Oakland youth, would benefit under a Perata administration because he said he will team up with the Oakland Unified School District to share resources and facilities; create a joint tax measure to pay for program services, like after school programs; and to stregthen Oakland Parks and Recreation by developing “public/private partnership with OPR alumni as leaders.”

What We Found: The city has some partnerships with the school district, including Teach Tomorrow in Oakland, but there are still many partnering opportunities that can be taken advantage of and Perata’s goal of increasing the city hall and public schools connection could receive strong support, especially since he was a schoolteacher in Alameda for 15 years.

As part of his cost cutting measures, Perta said he would suspend all city boards and commissions, unless they are mandated by state or federal regulation; eliminate a city staff position before cutting a police officer; and go “line by line” through the budget to find savings.

What We Found: There may be some boards worth cutting. the city has more than 40 boards and commissions, which include the Paramount Theatre of the Arts Board, the Community Policing Advisory Board and the Children’s Fairyland Board. However, it’s unclear what cost savings would be made in cutting the boards and if there would be enough savings to warrant cutting city boards and commissions.

As part of his budget plan, Perata said he would also “identify other non-essential city positions that are either duplicate or create needless layers of bureaucracy, and get rid of them first.” Perata points to Council President Brunner’s suggested cuts totaling $20 million. He said he is the only candidate with a track record of leadership in making such tough decisions and making them work.”

What We Found: Perata doesn’t give examples of non-essential city positions he may be thinking of; Oakland has undertaken serious staff cuts in the last two years. Brunner’s suggested cuts, if put into action by Perata may raise the ire of some communities. One of Brunner’s suggested savings include a 25 percent cut to the City’s Arts Grants Program.

As for his claim of being the only candidate with a track record of leadership in making “tough decisions,” Jean Quan may disagree, after all she voted for the recent police layoffs.

Jean Quan

Quan gives a brief response. She begins by saying, “the weighting of departments is unlikely to change in the short term.” Quan also said while the Oakland police will remain the largest part of the general budget, “the weighting within the budget” for items like over-time for officers will be likely be reduced. “Where possible I will reorganize to reduce administrative costs.”

What We Found: Quan may be correct about there being few short term changes to the city’s immediate budget, save for some reduction of police overtime, but she fails to say what she will specifically do to reduce administrative costs. Given that Quan has sat on the Oakland City Council for two years terms but cannot specify what needs to be cut, her answer is puzzling.

Joe Tuman

Tuman’s response is blunt: “I don’t know what I will cut yet; that will be subject to what I find in the audit.” (Editor’s note: In a previous MOBN! answer Tuman vowed to conduct a financial audit of city hall.)

Tuman also said he was committed to making public safety, public works, parks, and housing a priority in his mayoral term.

What We Found: Tuman’s “I don’t know” answer can be interpreted a variety of ways including either refreshing or troubling.

Terrence Candell

Candell is very ambitious in his plans. “I plan a $100,000,000 Mayor’s Jobs Program, with an on-the-job training component, with a distinct emphasis on “Hire Oakland First”, a committee on which I served for several years, but which had no teeth.”

Candell goes on to say that, “I do not plan to reduce programs. I plan to expand them. That is what you do, when you run successful businesses.”

What We Found: There was little to hang our hat on with Candell’s response. No details are provided about his jobs program idea, nor does he provide information on where he will get the funds to expand city programs.

Fields

Fields would like to “eliminate expenditures by cutting City bureaucracy on the top level. We have double the amount of city employees that we need.”

What We Found: Fields did not provide any specific expenditures or city positions that needed to be done away with.

Fact Checking The Mayoral Candidates’ Positions, Part One: Oakland’s Structural Budget Deficit

By Jennifer Inez Ward, Oakland Local

Oakland Local and Make Oakland Better Now! have teamed up to take a close look at the accuracy of candidates’ response to an online questionnaire from MOBN!. We want to know if candidates are being truthful and accurate in their responses, or are they veering from facts and offering opinion without any solutions? Each day, Oakland Local and Oaktalk will run a fact checking story on seven important questions.

Monday’s Question: How Will Mayoral Candidates Deal With Oakland’s Structural Budget Deficit?

When it comes to providing specific financial numbers or ideas many of our candidates for mayor fell short. Most of the answers, however, were spirited. Mayoral Candidate Rebecca Kaplan gave the most specific response.

Arnie Fields

In his response, Arnie Fields, said city government was mismanaged and that corruption in city hall must be rooted out before positive change can occur. Fields blamed former governor Jerry Brown for most of the modern day problem. He also accused Brown of using his policies to benefit in the sale of his home on Harrison Avenue.

What We Found: Fields was on point in saying that city funds have been criticized for being mismanaged in the past. That was something the state called the city on the carpet for its poor management of federal funds. However, when Fields tried to connect Jerry Brown’s city policies as mayor (Fields used the term “elitist policies”) he failed to provide direct proof that the policies were “elitiest “ and led directly to the former mayor’s home sale.

Greg Harland

Harland’s response is mostly devoid of specific ways he’d go about accomplishing his goals. Harland begins his response by saying, “I would balance the budget by cutting expenses. This will take major structural changes in city employee compensation and benefits”.

What we found: First, the candidate does not say what those structural changes will be. Second, given the current stalemate the city is in with its police department’s union and the strength of the fire fighters union, Harland doesn’t really lay out what he would bring to the table to turn things around for Oakland other than he will convince the union that, “it is in their best interest to do so.”

Rebecca Kaplan

Kaplan gives a detailed response to the question and down to the grit when she says she, “will work immediately to resolve the impasse regarding police pension contributions, seeking a 9% pension contribution as part of a strategy to eliminate police layoffs”.

What We Found: Kaplan has been on city council for two years, but she doesn’t explain what role she played in trying to prevent the impasse, nor what she’ll do this time around as mayor.

Kaplan was also criticized by some police  officers both for her actions during the Oscar Grant protest as well as during pension negotiations, making the effectiveness of her role somewhat challenging.

In her answer to MOBN, Kaplan reels off a list of things she’d like to accomplish with the budget, including long term solution plans. Kaplan wants to “refinance outside debt payments to lower interest rates, and reduce total outside debt, and switch to lower-cost sources, in order to reduce the impact of the structural deficit made up of debt payments.”

What We Found: It’s no secret the city’s debt situation is a hot mess, and Kaplan will have to do a lot of sweet talking and arm twisting to accomplish her goals. Rising pension costs will push the city’s projected deficit to $58.7 million by July 2011. And the biggest portion of that budget shortfall is a debt payment of $43.9 million due July 1, 2011, to the old Police and Fire Retirement System. The payment would be more than 10 percent of the roughly $400 million general purpose fund budget.

Kaplan has also proposed taking on certain short term measures to deal with the budget crisis including, “repositioning City assets that are currently losing money, and personnel management actions such as retirement incentives to lower personnel costs.”

What We Found: Kaplan doesn’t sketch out what “repositioning” is or how much she expects to save with her short term measures. Those measures will have to be effective quickly. According to a recently released City Audit report, the city is looking at fast-approaching deadlines and will possibly need alternative scenerios on paying on its pension obligation bonds.

In addition, many of Kaplan’s potential actions in dealing with the budget as mayor will have to be done in cooperation with City Council.

As part of her plans for generating short term revenue, Kaplan would also “like to see extra enforcement of  blight fines,  which she believes will serve to bring in revenue from the fines themselves, will help reinvigorate our neighborhoods.”

What We Found: Any extra enforcement will likely mean extra duty for city staffers because Oakland has growing areas dealing with serious blight, particularly foreclosed homes. Kaplan doesn’t say how much in additional fines the city can extract, so it’s unclear how much additional revenue the city will receive.

In addition, Kaplan’s office will have to coordinate with a wide variety of struggling city departments, including the police department, and a budget challenged public works department.

Kaplan takes credit for, “successfully advocated to be included in the Alameda County Vehicle Registration fee, and the new free Broadway Shuttle for which I helped land grant funding.”

What We Found: It is true, she has been active on this issue.

In June, the Alameda County Transportation Commission place a transportation improvement measure (Measure F) on the November 2, 2010 ballot that if passed by a majority vote of voters, would provide a Vehicle Registration Fee of $10 that would be used for local transportation and transit improvements throughout Alameda County.

In her response to MOBN about the structural debt, Kaplan also gives some generalities about “cutting red tape” for businesses. She also wants to rewrite the business tax code and zoning code to encourage job growth and economic revitalization. There are no details on how she would go about accomplishing this in her term.

Kaplan also goes on to say that that she’d like to see, “civilianizing certain roles in the police department.

What We Found: Kaplan does not say what specific roles in the department may benefit from civilianizing or how she would help change the relationship between Oakland and the Port Authority.

Kaplan said that under her administration she would make attracting new businesses a priority by, “implementing a clear plan for retail growth; changing zoning, identifying infrastructure needs and revamping recruitment and marketing programs to attract growth industries.”

What We Found: Kaplan doesn’t identify any examples of her proposals, so it’s hard to gauge how her plans could specifically impact the city’s debt.

Kaplan also connects attracting business to making sure our roads and infrastructure are improved, “City road and sewer repair efforts (including seeking outside funding) so these infrastructure costs decrease, rather than increase, over the long term.”

What We Found: Any efforts to deal with problems connected to our roads and infrastructure will have to delve into the Public Works Department financial problems. Even with outside funding, the city is looking at severe public work financial stress.

Don MacLeay

MacLeay decided to be efficient and combine some of his MOBN answers.

MacLeay said he will call a budget summit and a kind of budget “constitutional convention” where we put the whole budget on the table.”

Under this summit MacLeay has a nine point plan that he will advocate including, “Negotiate a transfer of the existing retirement plan to the employees; Start a new retirement plan that pays its liabilities on pay day; Have a plan for the ups and downs of the business cycle.”

What We Found: MacLeay will have his hands full just dealing with those issues. The city’s relationship with its unions is tense, at best. MacLeay doesn’t give an example of an effective alternative new retirement plan that pays its liabilities on pay day. Also, in his response, there’s no follow up details on developing city plans for dealing with business cycles.

MacLeay’s other points also fail to map out his goals. For example, he writes that he’d like to see, “Mandates, such as Measure Y need to become part of the law and policy of city government”, but there’s no specific actions proposed by the candidate.

MacLeay said good relations between city employees and the local government comes from “giving workers a fair work environment. We will not get the partnership we need from our employees and our unions if we do not live up to this promise of good conditions, good benefits, JOB SECURITY and a positive working environment. If we do, then we can work out viable contracts.”

Don Perata

Perata also wants to bring the experts on board to study the city’s growing fiscal problems. “We need experts in public finance to establish a common set of numbers that everyone can agree on in order to work to put together three, five and ten year expenditure / recovery plans for the city,” he said.

What We Found: Convening summits is a popular tool used regularly by elected officials. Dellums oversaw an economic summit with a few weeks after winning the election. And the current mayor regularly attends a variety of summits, yet it’s unclear what specific direct action has come out of these summits.

As part of his answer, Perata also thinks city government is too “top heavy” and as mayor, he would cut some administrative positions.

“I’d be shocked if I couldn’t find 80 jobs in city hall less important than the  80 cops who were laid off,” Perata wrote. “In fact, I’ve identified 30 alone in the city administrator’s office.”

What We Found: Perata did not name the 30 positions in the city administrator’s office that needed to be cut, so it’s unclear how realistic his plan is.

Jean Quan

Quan gives four bullet point responses to Question 2 that lacked any real detail. She said she wants to “Negotiate police pension contributions;(and) extend PFRS payments using existing tax rate.”

What We Found: Quan’s relationship with the police has been strained. Quan was blamed heavily by the Oakland police’s union for the recent layoff of 80 officers. Quan was also right in the middle of the Oscar Grant dustup with Kaplan.

AS for the PFRS payments plan, a recently released report by the Office of the City Auditor shows that it will be a tricky situation given that the city will still have to pay into the system.

In her response, Quan  also said she would like to continue to pay down internal debt.

What We Found: Paying down the debt will be an important thing to continue if the city can dig its way out of this financial disaster.

Reorganizing city services and increasing “retail sector revenue” are also Quan goals although she doesn’t offer suggestions on how to make either of those ideas happen

Joe Tuman

Tuman too wants an outside firm to study the city’s finances. “We will audit to gain a clearer perspective of efficiencies for cost, functionality, and ability to achieve core responsibilities of government,” he wrote to MOBN.

Tuman said as a result of the audit his office, “will act to effect as many cost-saving measures as possible in an effort to reduce the deficit.”

What We Found: Tuman will definitely be cutting to the bone with any cost-saving measures. According to a report  released by the city, since 2008, the city has implemented a number of cost saving measures including, closing City offices through furloughs, eliminating 237 jobs, laying off 150 workers, and closing branch libraries one day per week.

Tuman wants to also meet with labor unions regarding the city’s deficit.

“I will not in this document spell-out what demands I will make on our unions; this kind of information is strategic for negotiation, and only a neophyte would show his hand before the negotiation process has begun,” he wrote.

Tuman said he would also work with “external funding from the state or federal government, which might be used to supplement core functions.”

What We Found: Tuman didn’t spell out what he would do to get extra funding.

Terrence Candell

Candell give a brief two point bullet plan which includes taxing commuters to Oakland one percent on their paycheck; and putting tolls on major Oakland freeways.

What We Found: Candell, a supporter of Oakland’s own currency, doesn’t provide details on how he could push through a unique program like taxing commuters.

Candell’s second idea wouldn’t work because bridge tolls are administered by the Bay Area Toll Authority and the state agency Caltrans.

WHAT ABOUT OAKLAND’S LONG TERM FINANCIAL HEALTH?

Of all the problems with Oakland’s current budget discussions, here are the two problems  that may be the most profound.  The city has no meaningful reserve to fall back on if the economy gets worse.  And nobody is even discussing a long-term plan.  All of the current discussion surrounds just one question:

How do we close the budget gap for this fiscal year?”

So here is a discussion of the two questions Oaklanders ought to be asking:

Question 1: What if things get worse?

We all hope that housing prices will increase, that real estate transfers will pick up, and that consumer confidence will strengthen.  But what if they don’t?  What is the city’s plan then?  Pretty clearly it doesn’t have one.  And hope, as they say, is not a strategy.

Right now, Oakland has a reserve policy requiring a general purpose fund surplus of 7.5%.  But there are a couple of exceptions:

“If in any fiscal year the General Purpose Fund Reserve Policy is not met, the City Administrator shall present to Council a strategy to meet the General Purpose Fund Reserve Policy.”

And also:

“The amounts identified as the General Purpose Fund Reserve may be appropriated by Council only to fund unusual, unanticipated and seemingly insurmountable events of hardship of the City, and only upon declaration of fiscal emergency. For the purposes of this Ordinance, “fiscal emergency” may be declared (1) by the Mayor and approved by the majority of the City Councilor (2) by a majority vote of the City Council.”

So, in other words, the city must set aside 7.5% of the General Purpose Fund as a reserve unless it doesn’t, and then the City Council has to look at a strategy.  And it can only spend the reserve if there is a fiscal emergency, and there is a fiscal emergency when the City Council, or the City Council and mayor, say there is.

The results of that policy are pretty predictable:  the adopted 2010-11 budget has a General Purpose Fund surplus of only $9.8 million.  That’s 2.3%.  And that’s the City’s entire margin if it has unexpected increases in expenses or decreases in income.

Our larger, more famous and often more dysfunctional neighbor across the bay does one thing that Oakland could learn from.  San Francisco has a mandatory rainy day reserve fund” requirement, enacted by its voters as a charter amendment, Proposition G, in 2003.  Proposition G, which passed with 70% of the votes, is now Section 9.113.5 of San Francisco’s City and County Charter, and provides that:

  • In any year when the City projects that it will collect over five percent more money than it collected in the previous year, the City must allocate half of this money to a Rainy Day Reserve fund, one quarter to capital and other one-time spending, and one quarter to unrestricted use.
  • The City can use the Rainy Day Reserve Fund only when it collects less money than in the previous year. The City can spend up to half the money in the Reserve to make up for this shortfall in revenue.

There are some adjustments for inflation, for new taxes or fees (or reductions in taxes) and a maximum reserve amount (10% of the General Purpose Fund).

Should Oakland have a mandatory Rainy Day fund?  Should the charter or an ordinance prescribe how the fund accumulates and limit how it is spent?  Why allow the mayor or city council to use one-time revenue sources to balance the budget? Aren’t these questions that deserve consideration by Oakland’s voters?

Question No. 2:  What about the future?

Without a dramatic change in spending, by fiscal year 2013-14, Oakland will be looking at the following increases in annual expenses, at a minimum:

  • Net increase police services salaries:                                                  $12 million
  • Increased Kids’ First contribution:       $  Unknown
  • Increased employee health care costs:           $  Unknown

And we know that the City has $32 million in negative fund balances for which it has no repayment plan other than wishful thinking (e.g., payment with one-time revenue sources, which are all being used to meet operating expenses).

Since June, 2008, Oakland policy has required that a five-year financial plan be provided to Council October every other year.  But there is no five-year budget.  The five-year financial plan is not in the adopted budget (warning – very large pdf document), and we haven’t been able to find it on the city’s web site.

Don’t Oaklanders deserve effective, honest and transparent long-term budgeting and management processes based on real conditions on the ground?  From the standpoint  of good government and just plain common sense, why shouldn’t we have a five-year budget, based on city functions,  with regular updates to show Oaklanders whether the city is or is not meeting it’s long term goals?

Looking for more to read and watch?  The City has recently posted a “Budget Information Sheet” here.  It put up a new version of the interactive “Oakland Budget Challenge” here (although the “challenge” scarcely lists all the options).  And there’s a full half hour video of a budget discussion meeting involving the mayor, City Administrator Dan Lindheim, Budget Director Cheryl Taylor, Finance Director Joe Yew and other members of staff here.


[1] Note that the estimate for this annual payment, starting 7/1/11, was $40M as of 12/15/09.  But the number is a volatile one. Outside contractor Bartels & Associates estimated an annual cost of $56M in March of last year.  The City is considering use of its bonding capacity for some of this;  bond issuance would help the cash flow but increase Oakland’s annual expense for debt payment.

Some of the Make Oakland Better Now! board members thought this was less a tasty pastry than an awfully heavy meatloaf.  Maybe so.  But now that you’re done, go ahead.  Treat yourselves to a blueberry cheese puff from Lady Fingers Bakery.  And once you’re done, don’t forget to come to the Make Oakland Better Now! meeting on Saturday, June 19, 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. at the Rockridge Branch Library, 5366 College Avenue.  We’ll be formulating our strategy for what positions to take before the city council’s special budget meeting on June 24, and we really need your input.


Don’t Miss It — Special Budget Meeting, Tuesday, 5:00 p.m.

If you are a member of Make Oakland Better Now!, it’s because you care about the city addressing its obligations to keep us safe, to fix our infrastructure and to be transparent.  If the city cannot balance its budget, it simply won’t be able to address any of these issues.  That’s the subject of the meeting today,  February 16,  5:00 p.m. at City Hall.  As V Smoothe put it, come watch the Budget magic show!  Tricks galore!  Smoke! Mirrors!

There will be all of those for sure.  So be there, and fill out a speaker card.  Tell the  City Council members they have to  act responsibly and get the city’s financial house in order.

We previously wrote council, and our letter, based on your survey results, is hereHere’s a follow-up, with more survey results.  Hope to see you Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.