Yet somehow we can't avoid general fund deficit spending for this medium-sized city on that revenue stream? We might need to reduce our vision, consolidate departments, tighten budget oversight and reduce management staff, painful as that would be.
Indeed, Oakland does have one of the highest revenues per capita among California cities. This may also be true among the nation. However, the US News data is incorrect about the actual revenues. The city's revenues in 2023 were about $1.5B, which is about $3500 per capita.
Sorry, FUND these departments. I hate to say it, but we can live with potholes, recreation, salary cuts to the employees whose salaries exceed Bay Area averages (or reduce staffing if the unions fight temporary pay cuts). And there certainly appear to be many quick and easy cuts: automobile perks, “special advisors to the mayor “ ( use your department heads to advise you )
This is why whoever is elected mayor in 2025 to fill out the term should pledge to not run for re-election in 2026. Hard decisions will have to be made, and someone who plans to run in 2026 will not be able to make those decisions and propose a budget solution that will stave off insolvency.
In addition to a city administrator, Oakland has a finance director AND a budget administrator. All of these jobs have legions of support staff. Is it any wonder that Oakland is a sinking ship run by fools?
Yes the police and fire departments did significantly overspend their budgets, but how seriously underfunded were they? Were their budgets reasonable given most basic essential roles. Given that our police dept is seriously understaffed relative to our crime rate and the growing threat to lives and homes from fire, we need to find these departments.
Indeed, their budgets were cut by $48M on October 1, 2024 when the contingency budget kicked in. So of course, Fire and Police have not had time to react to that deep and sudden cut. Thus, the city's forecast of $86M of overspending by Fire + Police is true ONLY if they do not start slashing personnel in response to the sudden slashing of their budget.
Police and Fire have not actually overspent this money yet. This is a fact that the Council seems not to understand -- particularly those that continue to focus uniformly on cutting public safety services. Police and Fire are being unreasonably attacked by SEIU, IFPTE Local 21, & other non-safety unions, and by members of other interest groups, and by members of the council for a prospective scenario that hasn't actually happened.
But these attacks are really negotiating tactics, more than they are a statement of true beliefs. Each party is at the feeding trough knowing there is not enough food for everyone. And they are jockeying to prove who is most worthy of being fed, while trying to elbow out the others competing for the food.
It is also a misdirection to say that Police and Fire consume the majority of the budget. Together they are about 25% of the total City spending. But nearly all of Police and Fire are paid out of the General Purpose Fund -- raising their proportion to about 60% of that sub-fund. And the GPF is the fund with the deficit. The Council uses this disproportion as a tool to argue they wildly over-funded and gobbling up the city budget. It's not an accurate characterization.
But again - these are all negotiating tactics in what the players see and experience as a big competition for cash among many interest groups depending on city money.
1) A big reason why there's a large OPD overtime bill is because of the same crime increase that drove out businesses and depressed property values, which led to less tax revenue. Funny how that works.
2) In 2009 they screamed that the sky would fall, and it didn't. If a city with extremely inefficient operations gets its budget cut in the woods with no one around to hear, did it really happen?
Here's an article that suggests we (Oakland) have one of the largest per capita general fund revenue receipts in the country.
https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/us-cities-with-the-biggest-general-revenues-per-capita?slide=9
Yet somehow we can't avoid general fund deficit spending for this medium-sized city on that revenue stream? We might need to reduce our vision, consolidate departments, tighten budget oversight and reduce management staff, painful as that would be.
Indeed, Oakland does have one of the highest revenues per capita among California cities. This may also be true among the nation. However, the US News data is incorrect about the actual revenues. The city's revenues in 2023 were about $1.5B, which is about $3500 per capita.
See city auditor report for CA city comparisons in 2020: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14j25P7_j0NGJYYLoT4iXe3Zd7MjA1i3E/view
See city Annual Consolidated Financial Report page 11 for 2023 revenue total: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Si7L-O6OdmY6pddRvOapE6hFOKck1laA/view
Thank you for fully uncensoring the news.
Sorry, FUND these departments. I hate to say it, but we can live with potholes, recreation, salary cuts to the employees whose salaries exceed Bay Area averages (or reduce staffing if the unions fight temporary pay cuts). And there certainly appear to be many quick and easy cuts: automobile perks, “special advisors to the mayor “ ( use your department heads to advise you )
Cut council staffing and discretionary spending.
This is why whoever is elected mayor in 2025 to fill out the term should pledge to not run for re-election in 2026. Hard decisions will have to be made, and someone who plans to run in 2026 will not be able to make those decisions and propose a budget solution that will stave off insolvency.
In addition to a city administrator, Oakland has a finance director AND a budget administrator. All of these jobs have legions of support staff. Is it any wonder that Oakland is a sinking ship run by fools?
Yes the police and fire departments did significantly overspend their budgets, but how seriously underfunded were they? Were their budgets reasonable given most basic essential roles. Given that our police dept is seriously understaffed relative to our crime rate and the growing threat to lives and homes from fire, we need to find these departments.
Indeed, their budgets were cut by $48M on October 1, 2024 when the contingency budget kicked in. So of course, Fire and Police have not had time to react to that deep and sudden cut. Thus, the city's forecast of $86M of overspending by Fire + Police is true ONLY if they do not start slashing personnel in response to the sudden slashing of their budget.
Police and Fire have not actually overspent this money yet. This is a fact that the Council seems not to understand -- particularly those that continue to focus uniformly on cutting public safety services. Police and Fire are being unreasonably attacked by SEIU, IFPTE Local 21, & other non-safety unions, and by members of other interest groups, and by members of the council for a prospective scenario that hasn't actually happened.
But these attacks are really negotiating tactics, more than they are a statement of true beliefs. Each party is at the feeding trough knowing there is not enough food for everyone. And they are jockeying to prove who is most worthy of being fed, while trying to elbow out the others competing for the food.
It is also a misdirection to say that Police and Fire consume the majority of the budget. Together they are about 25% of the total City spending. But nearly all of Police and Fire are paid out of the General Purpose Fund -- raising their proportion to about 60% of that sub-fund. And the GPF is the fund with the deficit. The Council uses this disproportion as a tool to argue they wildly over-funded and gobbling up the city budget. It's not an accurate characterization.
But again - these are all negotiating tactics in what the players see and experience as a big competition for cash among many interest groups depending on city money.
Run by incompetents. Why are you surprised?
Thank you for the clarification/correction.
1) A big reason why there's a large OPD overtime bill is because of the same crime increase that drove out businesses and depressed property values, which led to less tax revenue. Funny how that works.
2) In 2009 they screamed that the sky would fall, and it didn't. If a city with extremely inefficient operations gets its budget cut in the woods with no one around to hear, did it really happen?