The Council’s Budget team published proposed amendments to Interim Mayor Kevin Jenkins’ proposed biennial budget this week, with a centerpiece that includes an efficiency-focused reduction of OPD academies, and an effort to civilianize [or re-civilianize] duties currently carried out by OPD. The Committee* is led by CMs Rowena Brown and Janani Ramachandran, with participation of Charlene Wang, Zac Unger and input from all CMs. The Brown/Ramachandran budget amendment also eliminates proposed layoffs in Jenkins’ budget and ensures that all firehouses are open, including the last station still browned out in Jenkins’ proposal. Acknowledgements of concerns by department heads at the Budget Study Session held several weeks ago are also clearly in view in the Committee’s budget amendments.
$28 MM Shifted in the GPF, with $24 MM Coming from Reductions
The Brown/Ramachandran budget proposes revenue additions and expenditure shifts of about $28 MM in the General Purpose Fund [GPF], and will be presented to Council at a special budget meeting Wednesday at 9am. Per the Committee’s memo, the amendments focus on 7 main areas over both biennial years of FY 25-26 and FY 26-27**—though only the public safety area amendments rely on redistributed General Purpose Fund [GPF] monies.
Public Safety
Clean/Safe Streets
Economic Revitalization
Housing Security and Homelessness Solutions
Parks/Open Space
Government Transparency and Effectiveness
Fiscal Health
Brown/Ramachandran's total GPF reductions in FY 25-26 are $8.8 MM and $15.1 MM in FY 26-2—a total of about $24 MM over both years. The self-insurance liability payment savings is the biggest single value in that amount—about $7 MM total, $1 MM in FY 25-26, and $6.1 MM in FY 26-27.
A marquee move in the Brown/Ramachandran budget removes the last police academy of the biennial budget. Other GPF budget savings in the proposed amendments also derive from salary savings from limiting city-wide hires to “Step 3” pay and repurposing funds intended for the self-insurance liability fund. The academy deletion saves about $3.9 MM in the second year.
Projected Revenue Additions of $4 MM are Speculative
In addition to reductions, the Brown/Ramachandran budget relies on projected revenue additions—but they are both to some degree speculative. About $2.25 MM and $1.75 MM in GPF revenue would come from an anticipated contract with Becker Boards and increased projections for special revenue projects, respectively. The Becker Boards contract is on the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting on 6/10, and still requires full Council approval, however.
OPD Doesn't Receive All of the Redistributed Academy Funds, but Still Gets Hefty Increase from Previous Biennial
About $2 MM of the academy savings goes back into the OPD for various new expenditures—around $1.2 MM of the savings rehires 5 civilian OPD staff into vacant roles currently being performed by sworn officers, according to the Brown/Ramachandran memo, across both years. The civilian positions are framed as a net addition to OPD staff by freeing the officers currently doing that work for patrol and supervisory work. Another $700K would go to overtime to fund human trafficking abatement operations.
Brown/Ramachandran budget $200K to increase OPD’s recruitment capacity and fill academies at a higher level. In their budget memo and directives, the committee suggests that eliminating the last academy “right sizes” current recruitment expectations to a realistic three academies in FY 25-26 and two in FY26-27”. In their directives, the committee suggests that OPD should aim for minimum starting classes of 40 trainees from the now current assumption of 33. As the Oakland Observer has reported, based on OPD data, only 1 OPD academy of the last two years has met the 33 target.
Though the additions and subtractions don’t fundamentally alter the OPD budget, only around 2 MM of the recouped savings from the deleted academy go back to OPD—the police will technically lose around $1.8 MM in GPF monies from the reduction that go to the other additions in the Brown/Ramachandran budget. Regardless Jenkins’ proposed budget represents about a $64 MM increase over the adopted GPF OPD budget of FY 23-25 [$661.30MM vs $725.75MM]—these amendments would make that a $62.2 MM increase***.
Non Police Public Safety Additions include Reversing OFD Station Closure
The rest of the shifted funds go to pay for non-OPD public safety additions, including the single largest expenditure, reversing closure of the last firehouse slated for brownout in Jenkins’ proposal—a total cost of about $10.3 MM in both years combined. Initially Interim Mayor Kevin Jenkins’ biennial budget included two browned out firehouses. Shortly after it was introduced, the CAO discovered Jenkins had over-budgeted OPD by about $10 MM in the biennial, and used the savings, among other things, to remove one of the stations from the list, leaving just the one slated for closure. Brown/Ramachandran’s amendments refund that last station cut.
The GPF shifts would also yield about $1 MM to the Public Ethics Commission, City Auditor and Community Police Review Agency. About $270K over both years would unfreeze a performance auditor position and aid the City Auditor in hiring third party contractors for legally mandated audits of ballot measure funds, a request of the Auditor, Michael Houston during the budget study session. About $488K would enhance the PEC budget, unfreezing an investigator and restoring the City’s limited public financing system, which resides in the PEC budget.
The CPRA would receive $200K to fund projects to expedite Skelly hearings. The CPRA’s complaints about Skelly hearing process long duration has spanned CPRA administrations—a long delay can become a defense that reverses discipline. Many officers remain on administrative leave while awaiting requested skellies after discipline, as well, drawing a salary and counting toward Oakland’s budgeted officer total.
Direction on Long Delayed IAD to CPRA Transfer
The legislation also directs the CAO to create a taskforce to expedite the long-delayed transfer of much of IAD’s role to the Community and Police Review Agency.
In 2023, former Mayor Thao budgeted savings from the anticipated transfer of duties performed by sworn officers to civilians in the CPRA, which beefed up the CPRA by 16 additional staff. But the original CPRA budget with the amplified roles was reduced again in FY 24-25’s mid–cycle process and since then the proposal has been back-burnered. Jenkins' budget forewent the planned transition funding for CPRA. Jenkins' budget had no plans for, or mention of, the CPRA transition.
Council discussions have returned again and again to the budget-saving and sworn-recouping potential of an IAD-transition, however. CM Carroll Fife agendized a report from the City on the status of the taskforce several weeks ago, and its scheduled for the Public Safety Committee on Tuesday. The Brown/Ramachandran direction coincides with the report and will be heard a day later.
Making the transition could run into institutional barriers, because the IAD is run by sworn officers who can't be laid off per their contract with the City, while civilian roles are always a target for budget balancing. In comments before the Oakland Police Commission several weeks ago, the CPRA's interim director Antonio Lawson expressed doubt that the City would ever return to the IAD transition framework—after Lawson said he had to struggle to return CPRA funding to a sufficient level to carry out its current caseload.
In comments to the Oakland Observer, former CPRA Director Mac Muir, who ran the agency when the shift seemed at hand in Thao’s budget, cautioned that the City and Council will have to budget the additional roles in CPRA ahead of the shift and commit to consistent funding of the CPRA.
“It will take a commitment to present and future funding [by council], the absence of layoffs, support from the Civil Service Board, to fill necessary positions…the reality is that the dollars will need to be allocated to CPRA before the transition takes place,” Muir said.
Safety Ambassadors and Economic Stimulus
The council budget also adds $5MM of GPF monies into the Economic and Workforce Development Department [EWD]—$1MM for safety ambassadors and $1MM for “economic opportunity zones” that would fund community-activating events. Another $3MM of GPF funding is transferred to EWD for a “business incentives program”.
Special Revenue Funds Funding Relies on Existing Fund Balance, “Step 3” Savings
The Brown/Ramachandran budget amendments distribute other non-GPF funds to various departments and projects over two years. Most of the funding is in varying amounts from projected savings in limiting new hire pay to Step 3 and existing balances in special funds.
Importantly, the council budget refunds $1 MM in Affordable Housing Trust Fund [1870] to a BACS-operated tenant support and homelessness prevention program that was put on hold for several months in the CED committee. At the time, Brown, the CED Chair, said she wanted to wait to address the funding to ensure that fund 1870 would be solvent enough to fund it as it was used last budget year to patch the deficit through special legislation.
The budget team’s proposal also sets aside about $2 MM in “contingency fund” transfers to reverse layoffs proposed in Jenkins’ budget. $1.5 MM in the Personal Management Fund [4510]; and $395K in the Purchasing Fund [4550].
Other transfers include:
—$2.3 MM in existing fund balance and step 3 savings in the Comprehensive Cleanup Fund [1720] to OPW for anti-dumping efforts, including technological support, unfreezing environmental officers and personnel to bolster surveillance efforts.
— $3.7 MM in existing fund balance and step 3 savings in Measure BB [2218] to Oakdot for sideshow prevention infrastructure, rapid response traffic changes, abandoned auto surge, bus shelters, and unfreezing a tree trimmer crew leader.
—$1.9 MM in existing fund balance and step 3 savings from Measure Q [2244] for OPW in overtime and third party contracts for landscaping and bathroom cleaning; park equipment and unfreezing various park-related roles.
—$1.4 MM in existing fund balance and step 3 savings from Measure W/Vacant Property Tax [2270] to provide workforce development in OPW careers and a reserve fund in case of federal cuts.
—$3.2 MM in the Development Services Fund [2415] in existing fund balance and step 3 savings from the Development Service Fund, to unfreeze a special events coordinator in EWD and to add various roles to Information Technology Department [ITD] on the City’s permit software, Accela.
Authorizing Use of One Time Revenues; Declaration of Severe and Unanticipated Fiscal Event; Declaration of Extreme Fiscal Necessity
At the same budget meeting, the City Administrator is presenting one omnibus legislative item to cover requirements for the Jenkins and Brown/Ramachandran budget to use funding in a way that would normally be an unauthorized use of City monies. For example, the City’s Consolidated Fiscal Policy doesn’t allow the use of one-time funds to balance the budget without a special declaration, and there are several one time funds used in both proposals. The City’s new Measure NN public safety ballot measure also requires a minimum budgeted staffing of 700 officers, but the City has already admitted it won’t reach that amount at any point in the next two years. A declaration of a severe and unanticipated fiscal event is necessary to avoid violating the measure’s rules while still using the money.
Many of the city’s special tax funds also require the city to fund “maintenance of effort” the City’s share of the load to ensure that the ballot measures go to improving services, not just replacing city funding.
The City’s tax measure requirements that will be relaxed by the legislation:
—maintenance of effort for Measure C for Library Services
—maintenance of effort for Measure Q, Parks and Homelessness
—the minimum budget allocation for Democracy Dollars
—Measure X’s minimum budget allocation for City Auditor minimum staffing
—restrictions on spending revenues form the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
—authorization to use funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
*For the past several years under Council President Bas, the City Council formed a committee of four CMs tasked with taking input from other CMs and presenting a consolidated version of their own proposals, and crafting a “council budget” of amendments to the Mayor’s proposed budget. The Brown Act only allows four CMs maximum, less than a quorum, to meet in a non-public setting. The Council President is responsible for preparing and presenting the amendments, but in this case, Council President Jenkins served as Mayor into the amendment period. To avoid the schism of preparing both the budget and amendments himself, Jenkins appointed CMs Brown and Ramachhandran to be “co-chairs” of the committee, a construct of his own invention.
**the biennial budget is a road map for two years of expenditures, but the Council and Mayor/CAO have the power to alter the budget through agendized vote at any time throughout the year. The Mayor/CAO are allowed to overspend the OPD and OFD’s budget without seeking additional authority to do so.
Additionally, there is a regular process after the first budgeted year to revisit assumptions about spending and revenues in the “mid-cycle” budget adjustment. The mid-cycle adjustment can become a new budget in itself that can deviate from the original in ways small and large. Thus, in a very real way, the biennial is mostly only a concrete budget for the first year of the biennial— and even that can change. With all this being said, OO’s intentions with reporting about the biennial is to represent what CMs and Mayor/CAO are claiming they will budget in the two year biennial, over both years.
***It’s important to note that the contingency budget slightly reduced the budgeted GPF spending OPD received in 2025-26 and regardless of budget, OPD overspends in tens of millions, historically. OPD did not meet the limits of its contingency budget in FY 24-25 and actually overspent its original budget.
Comments ()