Civil Grand Jury Report Details Oakland’s Shortcomings

By Deborah Shefler

The Alameda County Grand Jury is composed of volunteers who investigate citizen complaints about local government. Each year they prepare a report describing their work and conclusions. The goal is to help the government function more efficiently in delivering services to its citizens. This year’s report addresses five areas where Oakland has failed in its duty to its citizens. It also demonstrates how  the county Registrar of Voters (ROV) office could instill greater trust in our election results.

1. BAD ROADS AND NO BUILDING: OAKLAND’S BUDGET PROBLEMS MEAN NO BONDS FOR THE CITY’S NEEDS

The Grand Jury discovered that Oakland has stopped issuing voter-approved infrastructure bonds, which is the primary source of funding for capital projects such as street paving and affordable housing. Bond sales are not possible in the short term, and possibly for some time to come. The Grand Jury further discovered that Oakland’s financial situation is so precarious that insolvency may be closer than the City’s elected officials have been willing to acknowledge publicly. 

This situation is due, in the first place, to a structural deficit in the City’s General Purpose Fund (GPF), which covers the City’s basic operations. A structural deficit occurs when expenses exceed the total revenues from such things as taxes and fees. The Oakland city government has inappropriately tried to cover that deficit by relying on one-time sources of revenue, such as the sale of the City’s interest in the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex. The City currently projects a deficit of about $265 million in the GPF for fiscal years 2025-2027.

Secondly, there is a disconnect between the City officials responsible for the City’s finances and budget, and the elected officials who control the expenditures and certain revenues. Finance officials have repeatedly warned of the ongoing structural deficit and the inappropriateness of relying on one-time revenue sources to cover that deficit. With the City now out of any viable one-time solutions, Oakland is faced with layoffs, likely requests for union concessions, painful service reductions, etc. All three major rating agencies recently downgraded their ratings for Oakland, and labeled the future rating outlook as negative, making it even harder to raise money by selling bonds.

Unless the City council takes “urgent and drastic” action to address the structural deficit, Oakland will not be able to sell bonds any time soon and could face insolvency.

2. OAKLAND’S POTHOLES: A BUMPY ROAD AND INADEQUATE OVERSIGHT

Both drivers’ experience and data confirm the terrible condition of Oakland’s roads. Twice, Oakland voters took extraordinary steps to fix the City’s streets. They passed infrastructure bond measures in 2016 and 2022 (Measures KK and U), authorizing $1.45 billion in bonds, with $640 million devoted to transportation projects, including extensive street repaving. Yet, potholes and other bad pavement conditions persist, resulting in City liability for property damage and personal injury, and deteriorating quality of life for all who use our roads.

The Grand Jury investigation revealed problems with the way road repairs are completed and funded. 

• Oakland does not fund street paving, repair, or maintenance out of its GPF. It relies primarily on bond measures to pay for repaving. For street repair and maintenance, and some paving, Oakland has also used transportation sales tax, gas tax, and vehicle registration fee revenue. 

• Potholes are a symptom of the larger problem of the pavement failing because of a lack of repaving over decades. The needed solution is large repaving projects, which Oakland sought to undertake through the approval of Measures KK and U bonds.

• Although Oakland made some progress, it has not met its goals. To date, OakDOT has not received any money from Measure U because it did not sell any bonds in 2024. This situation is due to the City’s precarious fiscal situation (see section 1 above). There is no clear date when the City may be able to sell bonds again. As a result, its paving may largely stop – a victim of the City’s fiscal crisis.

• The Grand Jury found other problems that delayed OakDOT’s paving and street repair work involving, e.g., delays, lack of change order control, broken/unavailable equipment and personnel, anti-competitive bidding restrictions.

Finally, the City has not provided effective oversight regarding expenditures of bond funds, e.g., required audits have not been conducted, the citizen oversight committee has failed to meet regularly or produce reports. 

The Grand Jury provides eight recommendations to which the City must respond, within 90 days.

3. OAKLAND'S POOR STEWARDSHIP OF MEASURE Q PARKS FUNDING JEOPARDIZES ITS EFFECTIVENESS

In March 2020, Oakland voters approved Measure Q, a 20-year parcel tax designed to enhance funding for parks maintenance, homelessness services, and stormwater quality improvements. The Measure Q account contained almost $47 million by the end of FY 2024-25. Of the 65% of those funds reserved for parks,  no more than 55% can go to existing park maintenance, with the remaining funds for new park-related expenses. 

In 2023, the City invoked a vaguely defined “extreme fiscal necessity” crisis to justify temporarily suspending those funding requirements, and reallocated Measure Q funds without explaining how or when “extreme fiscal necessity” might end.  The Grand Jury discovered three instances when Measure Q funds were diverted to cover costs outside the measure’s (and the voters’) intent, e.g., on non-park staff salaries,  requiring refunds to the Measure Q account. 

In addition, the Grand Jury found no establishment of clear baselines, no consistent public reporting on the measure’s effectiveness, and no consistent and effective oversight, frustrating stakeholders. Of the 16 recommendations in the 2023 auditor’s report on Measure Q, the City had fully implemented only one by the end of 2024. 

These breaches undermine transparency and public trust, demonstrate a breakdown in fiscal stewardship and accountability, and jeopardize the success of future parcel tax measures. 

The Grand Jury provides eight recommendations to which the City must respond, within 90 days.

4. ADDING INSULT TO INJURY: OAKLAND ISSUES PARKING TICKETS TO STOLEN VEHICLES

The City issues parking tickets on thousands of stolen vehicles. Oakland tickets illegally parked vehicles to discourage such behavior and to raise revenue. But ticketing stolen vehicles serves neither purpose. Indeed, it incurs costs for the City and hardship on the victims. So why does it happen? 

The Grand Jury learned that Oakland’s parking control technicians regularly issue tickets to stolen vehicles because they currently have no tools (other than obvious visual evidence) to determine if a vehicle is stolen. The Grand Jury identifies two potential methods to solve the problem and recommends expeditious implementation.  In December 2024 OakDOT issued a request for proposal  for new devices and support. 

The Grand Jury makes three recommendations to which the City must respond, within 90 days.

5. OAKLAND’S WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS: GOOD VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, BUT EMERGENCY ACCESS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Oakland inspects approximately 25,000 properties annually, with a high compliance rate. The recent passage of Measure MM will provide funds to allow implementation of the City’s detailed Vegetation Management Plan (VMP), including increased vegetation control and removal on City-owned properties. However, the City Council has not yet taken all actions necessary to enable the prompt implementation of Measure MM.

The Grand Jury also found Oakland has failed to expand (however unpopular) and enforce parking restrictions in high fire risk areas, or communicate to residents planned evacuation routes and procedures. If illegally parked vehicles block evacuation routes, residents cannot evacuate safely, emergency vehicles cannot quickly access wildfires, and first responders cannot gain access in non-fire emergency situations.

The Grand Jury provides six recommendations to which the City must respond, including adoption of a plan or legislation to implement the VMP, within 90 days.

6. THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS DOES AN IMPRESSIVE JOB, BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY IS NEEDED IN ALAMEDA COUNTY ELECTIONS

   
   

The ROV’s job includes mailing out ballots and voter guides, training workers, setting up vote centers and ballot drop boxes, and collecting and counting ballots. The ROV handled the November 2024 general election without much controversy or conflict. But the Grand Jury’s examination revealed some concerns:

• Attempts to observe the election process in-person and online were often frustrating due to silent and glitchy video streams and in-person observations that lacked explanations of the process. 

• The posting of the election results was incomplete, delayed, and at times misleading. 

• The Logic and Accuracy (L&A) testing of the ballot scanning equipment did not seem to test anything that seemed useful.

The Grand Jury makes a number of recommendations to improve the experience for future election observers: 

• On election night, the ROV should make the entire counting process available for observation and make knowledgeable employees available to explain the process. 

• The updates of the reporting tabulation should not imply that “all precincts reporting” means that all votes have been counted. 

• The L&A testing of the counting machines should allow observers to select the machines being tested and to provide pre-marked and pre-tabulated ballots to be compared with the machines’ results.

It is not enough that people are able to vote for candidates and ballot measures. They also must believe that their votes are counted properly, and that the process is fair. Transparency helps establish that trust.