Oakland 2023-2024 Budget: Councilmember Ramachandran’s Statement

Dear Oakland District 4 Resident,

I entered this Oakland 2023-2024 budget cycle with a commitment to passing a budget that rebuilds public trust in City Hall, funds basic city services, and supports safe neighborhoods where every resident can thrive. I respect my fellow Council colleagues, and the significant efforts they have all put into trying to serve our city’s needs in a difficult budget cycle where we face a $360 million projected deficit. I am also grateful for the tireless efforts of our city’s Finance staff who skillfully maneuvered this challenging process.

In particular, I want to express my appreciation for the Council President’s Budget Team’s inclusion of several of my proposed amendments which I presented earlier this month, based on the feedback of my constituents and community stakeholders. The budget which passed ultimately included funding for:

• Community Safety Ambassadors in commercial corridors to help curb the uptick of crime,
• Traffic Safety interventions,
• Grant Writer focused on increasing public safety resources,
• Department of Violence Prevention contracts with local nonprofits,
• Cultural Affairs community grants,
• Expanded affordable housing initiatives,
• Additional Tree Services workers, which support wildfire prevention efforts,
• Major improvements across city parks, including those in District 4.

I entered office earlier this year with a strong and unwavering commitment to uphold the values of government transparency, responsiveness to community concerns, and accountability as fiduciaries of Oakland’s limited dollars. I do not take this commitment lightly, and factor them into every decision that I make as a public servant.

It is precisely this commitment that led me to abstain from voting for the proposed budget this week. My decision to abstain was wholly based on the proposed re-organizations and mergers of Oakland’s Department of Parks, Recreation, and Youth Development (OPRYD) with the Human Services Department, and the merger of the Department of Housing and Community Development with Homelessness Services. To me, the decision to merge departments was not transparent, fiscally prudent, nor responsive to the plethora of community concerns.

As stated in my presentation at Monday’s council meeting (see video clip here), after receiving a developmental study on the matter, I am not at all opposed to contemplating the re-organizations of city departments. However, in this budget cycle, we were asked to approve such mergers before receiving any written information whatsoever about the proposed mergers regarding potential financial benefits and improved services for Oakland residents.

There were several reasons why I did not want to vote on a department merger before seeing a study that explores its feasibility:

Firstly, these mergers have been contemplated and studied in recent history, yet not executed for specific reasons. I wanted to understand what circumstances have changed since that now may make it feasible.

Secondly, especially in the wake of a staff vacancy crisis, it was unclear how staff in departments with incredibly different functions would be re-organized or re-hired. For example, Housing and Community Development (HCD) performs tasks that focus on construction of new affordable housing, as well as administration of grants and similar functions. In contrast, Homelessness Services focuses on providing direct social services to our unhoused community.

Thirdly, given the tragic escalation of Oakland’s homelessness crisis, I would want to explore the possibility of a standalone Homelessness Department as other similarly sized cities have done. This is especially important given our urgent need to streamline spending of our limited homelessness dollars (as last year’s City Auditor’s report revealed gross inefficiencies in the way they are currently spent), and the need to establish a clearer channel of communication and partnership with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

Finally, the presentations from the Mayor’s office and City Administration did not delineate clear nor substantial cost savings – and the more questions we asked about it, the more uncertain the financial implications appeared. As fiduciaries of Oakland’s financial resources that voters have trusted us to protect, especially in a budget deficit that requires fiscal prudence, I was uncomfortable to take actions that had not been properly analyzed nor vetted. The last re-organization of Oakland’s Department of Transportation and Public Works is testament to the fact that such efforts may in fact lead to increased, rather than decreased, costs to the city. One of the most critical aspects of re-building the public’s trust in local government is the ability to answer the fundamental question, “where is our money going?” A rushed vote with unclear financial implications certainly does not accomplish this.

To me, it defies logic to cast a vote to merge departments, but only receive a study on the feasibility of such mergers nearly one year after the vote. We have unfortunately seen this throughout Oakland’s political history – where elected leaders flock to support an idea that sounds good, in order to say that something is being done in tough times. But despite good intentions, such hasty decisions usually accomplish no more than pushing the dust around.

I am grateful for all my constituents, community stakeholders, city staff, and others who encouraged my constructive questioning of these re-organizations – with the ultimate goal of building a more effective government that meets the people’s needs. I look forward to collaborating with my colleagues to inject more pragmatism into policies that reflect our shared values, and co-creating a brighter future for the Town.