City Council Committee meetings are usually held on a single Tuesday, starting at 9:30 am, with the last meeting beginning at 6pm and potentially lasting until 9pm and later. In the current legislative frame, substantive deliberation on items from individual CMs, the CAO and its various sub-departments as well as the City Attorney and OPD happens during the committee period—and if the 4-member committee unanimously votes for an item, it goes to the Council’s consent calendar where there is usually minimal discussion—the clerk reads in the titles of the items before all the items are passed in bulk, often without the public even being aware of what was just voted in to law. Committee-approved items almost never fail at Council.
Every Thursday, the Rules Committee accepts those scheduling requests from the committees and schedules them to a future City Council meeting. Rules also serve as a subject matter committee on certain issues, like certain commission appointments, ballot measures, the rules for council procedures—the Committee deliberates these and suggests recommendations to Council in the same way as any other subject matter committee. A Rules Committee meeting can take anywhere from an hour to 6 hours, depending on the issues being discussed.
With this level of importance riding on these meetings, OO has committed to live reporting on X-Twitter that creates an ongoing record of the events. Sometimes OO is the only record—and sometimes OO's record is the only reason why major media discover these stories, whether they admit that or not.
OO will continue this valuable reporting, and publish the reporting threads on a third party site, along with a PDF document, so that those choosing not to use X can still make use of the documents. Here’s the threads as reported on live. There's added highlights of important issues, corrections, additional information, reporting and observations.
Finance Committee
[Finance and Public Works Meetings are Presented in One Tweet Thread]
—At Finance, Committee members reviewed possibilities for raising funds to cover the $40 MM hole in the upcoming second year of the biennial budget, which begins in July, 2026. In the vision of interim Mayor Kevin Jenkins, that hole would be filled by a likely parcel tax focused on maintaining public and public safety services. But that parcel tax must first be written, deliberated and passed by Council for placement on the ballot.
The report leaves few options but a parcel tax ballot measure, due to the lack of feasibly raising other fees and taxes to that revenue level—however, per questions from Unger, Budget Director Bradley Johnson did agree that a blend of taxes is possible, much like there is as the basis of Measure NN. Unger also teased out into the public record that at least one current parcel tax will sunset by 2026, removing a tax burden for current property owners–the tax funds a previous pension fund for Oakland firefighter and police benefits before CALPERS which will become self-sustaining by then.
—Just a couple of days before ALCO’s board punted on its proposed investment/divestment policy, the City of Oakland reviewed its own investment policy. With several tee ups from City staff about potential for divestiture, including the staffer mentioning Israel, no CM mentioned a proposal for any divestment legislation on the widely recognized US-funded genocide, although many currently exist in the policy.
—During a discussion of a now-well discussed OPD overtime overage in the last quarters of FY 24-25, OPD Sgt Tedesco revealed that despite receiving an additional budgetary allotment of $220K for marketing to increase academy recruitment, the OPD has not yet started the process of finding a contractor for the project. The bolstered recruitment was described as a key to fill a smaller number of academies with more recruits, obviating an additional academy in the second budget year. But recruitment has remained abysmal by any standard, with only 20 recruits filling the current academy, a number which as been steadily decreasing since the class began.
Public Works and Transportation
[Finance and Public Works Meetings are Presented in One Tweet Thread]
In a dense sheaf of infrastructure contracts at Public Works, it was revealed that local asphalt provider Martin Marietta [MM] has refused to sign a pre-contract document to abide by the terms of the City’s sanctuary and border wall policies. Due to those laws passed by Council, no contractor with the City of Oakland may do business with the federal government to work on the border wall or sub-contract with immigration enforcement.
MM also appears to have already been violating the border wall legislation and the sanctuary city legislation, as it has already been providing asphalt services to the City of Oakland. It's likely this occurred because MM assumed the contract of the previous provider, Lehigh Hanson [LH] after MM acquired that company in 2021. The LH contract was initially two years, but the legislation that greenlit the contract in 2020 gave the CAO the power to renew the contract without returning to Council for up to two more years, and then on a month to month basis until a new contract could be brought to Council. Thus, MM appears to have already been violating the City’s ordinances through this gray area. The legislation also authorizes the City to pay outstanding balances of $250K to MM, which were likely generated during the several months since the last contract renewal expired.
MM also took over a large aggregate processing yard located on Tidewater Blvd which often uses the estuary to transport aggregate. Oakland registered lobbyist Michael Colbruno, who recently ended a 12 year run as an Oakland Port Commissioner, was the lobbyist for Lehigh Hanson, and became the Oakland lobbyist for Martin Marietta when it subsumed the company, according to Oakland records. Colbruno registered with the City as a lobbyist for the company during the bidding period where no other entity could be found to fulfill the City’s requirements and the City began negotiations with MM that would require the waivers, according to city records. But there are no records of any lobbying during this period. The two year contract could be worth up to $1MM.
Community and Economic Development
Twitter Thread
At CED, the Housing and Community Development Committee introduced a proposal that would allow a small number of currently market rate apartment buildings to be purchased and deed-restricted as permanent affordable through a local state Joint Powers Authority [JPA]. The JPA would use bond revenue to purchase and subsidize the units to make them deed restricted and permanently affordable to tenants making 80% of the area median income. This would turn units that are currently affordable to middle income residents in a currently depressed market into permanently affordable units the tenants can continue to afford as rents are expected to increase. The downside is that deed restricted affordable housing no longer pays property taxes, which will cost the city up to $1 MM per year in lost property tax revenue.
With the City starting out with a limit of 600 units for the program, only a few buildings are likely to be bought and converted this way. On this note, one notable influence in the meeting was lobbyist Isaac Kos-Read, who is currently representing Hybridge Capital Management, a venture capital firm that recently scooped up a moribund property in late development at 4400 Martin Luther King Blvd. The building had been intended to produce around 57 market rate units, but when the residential market slowed down, the project took on water. Hybridge bought the nearly-complete building, and wants to convert it into 144 affordable units. That would be a fifth of the total investment the City is initially looking into—Kos-Read advocated at the meeting to include the building in the City’s initial investment.
Life Enrichment Committee
The big story at Life Enrichment last Tuesday was legislation to allocate already budgeted funds to the City’s homelessness intervention programs, which are run by third party organizations. The City’s Human Services department is now recommending setting “community cabins” and RV “safe parking” programs to a shorter budget time frame of six months, rather than the typical year. In the new proposal, a significant share of the City’s community cabins programs would be put on the six month funding list, along with both of the City’s remaining safe parking sites. New funding sources could continue the programs past these dates—and this is especially noteworthy with Measure W funds on the way. But available funding sources alone may not be the sole criteria, as the City also notes the programs have not met expectations for permanent paths to housing for clients. Measure W funding will also go directly to contractors through the County’s own criteria and housing plan, leaving open questions about how the funding could be used to meet Oakland’s current program needs.
During the meeting, Sasha Hauswald, who in addition to serving as the Homelessness Solutions Director is also the Human Services department’s interim director of Community Homelessness Services, told Committee members that the programs would potentially be wound down due to the exigencies of declining state and local non-GPF funds. Hauswald noted that there's a current reduction in the two year HHAP 6 outlay from the state—and that next HHAP funds will likely be half of that.
In earmarking programs for closure in a competitive and diminishing funding field, Hauswald said that the department looked closely at those programs that have underperformed in the goal of steering clients to permanent housing. Hauswald said that the sites like Community Cabins and Safe Parking themselves are used as quasi-permanent housing solutions, and when they end, the majority of clients go back to homelessness or precarious situations. Hauswald told Committee members that with a shrinking budget, the programs with poor outcomes and higher cost per bed than the rest have ended up on the list to consider for closure.
Rules and Legislation Committee
Twitter Thread
—At Rules, reappointments to the Oakland Police Commission [OPC] boomeranged back to the dais on Thursday. Previously at the 9/25 Rules meeting, Committee Chair Kevin Jenkins had stated that unspecified “concerns” had motivated him to unilaterally send the appointments back to the Selection Panel, saying it was his “expectation that the Selection Panel will take this up again and hear those concerns.”
The Selection Panel has a charter-mandated role in choosing members of the Police Commission [with the Mayor choosing others] through a set process. But the charter mandated role for the full City Council is receiving and approving or declining the appointments through majority vote only. If the Council as a whole is presented the appointments but declines to act on them, the appointments are enacted automatically after 60 days. In this case, the Selection Panel undertook the process of interviewing and considering the reappointments of alternate Commissioner Omar Farmer and Chair Roberto Garcia Acosta—and actually held an additional round of interviews due to public complaints that other candidates’ full applications had been mistakenly overlooked. Thus, the candidates were thoroughly vetted in a longer than usual process, and the Selection Panel voted to approve the reappointments of Farmer and Garcia-Acosta in late July.
Although the Selection Panel’s members are selected by the City Council, the Rules Chair does not apparently have the power to send the appointments they make through their Charter directed process back to the Panel for reconsideration. This is what may have led to the CAO sending the legislation back to Rules on Thursday through direct scheduling. A note reiterating the Charter-mandated flow of the appointment process accompanied the item, stating that the Selection Panel must submit its slate to the City Council for approval and advising that the terms of Farmer and Garcia-Acosta end October 16. The note suggests the interregnum could cause quorum issues for the body.
In reading in the item, however, the City Administrator seemed to capitulate to Jenkins’ interpretation of the Rules process. Jenkins is arguing that certain appointments for the City’s independent commissions are first heard substantively at Rules before being scheduled to the full City Council. Jenkins cited “Rule 19” of Council Rules of Procedure—but the text of Rule 19 only mentions the Mayor’s candidates for appointment and reappointment to OPC, not those from the Selection Panel. Historically, Rules has sometimes considered the appointments from the Selection Panel as subject matter items, and sometimes has not, scheduling directly from the Rules scheduling agenda.
With the delays to reschedule the items for substantive consideration to Rules, the appointments won’t arrive to the Committee until October 16 for deliberation, the day the current appointments for Farmer and Garcia-Acosta expire. Farmer is the only alternate commissioner currently on the commission and without Garcia Acosta, the OPC would have only the bare minimum for quorum, 5 commissioners. The impact on the Police Commission isn’t clear—the Committee will be filling its role under the Militarized Weapons ordinance in the coming weeks by issuing a recommendation on the OPD’s inventory.
—Another item which may yet see a controversial arc. The City Attorney is seeking the power to defend City employees who may fall into the crosshairs of federal prosecution in the vast area between the state’s immigration laws and the Trump administration’s novel legal interpretations. The legislation would:
"delegate authority to the City Attorney or their designee to facilitate and authorize the legal defense of City officers and employees in criminal proceedings for acts or omissions within the scope of their official duties".
The legislation would allow the City Attorney to act without immediate Council approval.
The OCA’s legislative proposal is based on established state law that allows jurisdictions to defend employees in criminal matters if certain conditions are met—the City’s proposal would establish those findings for potential defense of employees in carrying out local and state law.
San Jose passed a similar legislation in June, also citing current federal actions. Though the legislative memo primarily cites immigration issues, Oakland's legislation, like San Jose's, would not limit the power to defend on criminal matters to just immigration issues.
The item must first be heard by Rules as a matter of substantive consideration on October 16.
Public Safety Committee
No additional notes here, but the thread is worth reading.
Twitter Thread
Comments ()