PRR 5505 Response - Emails

________________________________________________________________________________
_______________
From: Cook, Brigitte
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:33 PM
To:
tom@cliffordmoss.com; McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
RE: HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
It s just a hold - Waiting on confirmation from Gallo s scheduler.
__________________________________________________
Brigitte Cook, Community Liaison\Scheduler
From: tom@cliffordmoss.com [mailto:tom@cliffordmoss.com]
To: McElhaney, Lynette; Cook, Brigitte
Subject: RE: HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
good - do we have noel committed, too?
-------- Original Message -------Subject: HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
From: "McElhaney, Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Tue, June 17, 2014 4:28 pm
To: "Cook, Brigitte" <BCook@oaklandnet.com>, <tom@cliffordmoss.com>
Meeting Request
[Accept] [Decline]
If you accept, this meeting will be added to your Calendar automatically.
Meeting Name:
HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
Location:
Council Office
Start Time:
Mon, Jun 23 2014 4:00 pm
End Time:
Mon, Jun 23 2014 5:00 pm
Conflicts in the Next Year:
None
Description:
Waiting for confirmation from CM GalloNNMeeting request fromT. Clifford.NNN
Comments:
________________________________________________________________________________
_________
To:
tom@cliffordmoss.com; McElhaney, Lynette;
casey@lynettemcelhaney.com
Cc:
Cotton, Chantal
Subject:
RE: Meeting this Friday
We have the date on hold, so I will send out the invitation.
Lynette, which clergy and chamber members would you like to invite?

To: McElhaney, Lynette; Cook, Brigitte; casey@lynettemcelhaney.com
Cc: Cotton, Chantal
Subject: Meeting this Friday
Lynette, Brigitte, Casey (with copy to Chantal):
Can we call a meeting with a few stakeholders this Friday to review a revised dr
aft of the language coming out of public safety tonight? I am out next week and
our posting deadline for July 15 will be next wednesday anyhow, so let's get th
is on the books so that Lynette can work her magic and get all on the same page.
3:30 Friday?
Invitees: Bruce, Amy, Ann (and 1-2 of her people), Mcconnell, clergy (1-2), Cha
mber.
Others?
If we get this on the books it will be huge! Let's do it.
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________
From: tom@cliffordmoss.com
To:
McElhaney, Lynette; Cook, Brigitte; casey@lynettemcelhaney.com
Cc:
Cotton, Chantal
Subject:
Meeting this Friday
Lynette, Brigitte, Casey (with copy to Chantal):
Can we call a meeting with a few stakeholders this Friday to review a revised dr
aft of the
language coming out of public safety tonight? I am out next week and our postin
g deadline
for July 15 will be next wednesday anyhow, so let's get this on the books so tha
t Lynette
can work her magic and get all on the same page. 3:30 Friday?
Invitees: Bruce, Amy, Ann (and 1-2 of her people), Mcconnell, clergy (1-2), Cha
mber.
Others?
If we get this on the books it will be huge! Let's do it.
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
From: Cotton, Chantal
To:
McElhaney, Lynette; tom@cliffordmoss.com
Subject:
FW: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Attachments:
14-5234 qst - 7.pdf
FYI so you ll have the list of folks I sent it to. I included the Mayor on my list
and Sean Maher (who will
make sure she reads it).
Thanks,
Chantal

To: Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Bedford, Sara; Kim, Peter; Whent, Sean; Figueroa, Paul
; Deloach Reed,
Teresa; Hom, Donna; Johnson, Bradley; Sanchez, Arturo M; DeVries, Joe
Cc: Quan, Jean; Maher, Sean; Orologas, Alexandra
Subject: FW: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Hi all,
Please review this draft poll for the Safety and Services Ballot Measure (Measur
e Y Successor). It is the
second (and final) poll that we will be doing for the ballot measure. Please get
your input to me by
Friday, June 27th by Noon.
Thanks all!!
Chantal R. C.
To: McElhaney, Lynette; Cotton, Chantal
Subject: Draft Poll
Chantal, Lynette:
Draft one of the next poll. We need to finalize this by July 1.
I ask for a quick turn - by Friday?
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
From: Farmer, Casey
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:44 AM
To:
tom@cliffordmoss.com; Anne Marks; McElhaney, Lynette
Cc:
David Kakishiba; olis@youthuprising.org
Subject:
RE: Tomorrow's meeting
Hi Anne,
Thanks for the head s up. Sorry to miss you and David! See you tomorrow Olis!
Best,
Casey
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:36 AM
To: Anne Marks; McElhaney, Lynette
Cc: Farmer, Casey; David Kakishiba; olis@youthuprising.org
Subject: RE: Tomorrow's meeting
Thanks Anne!
-------- Original Message -------Subject: Tomorrow's meeting
From: Anne Marks <amarks@youthalive.org>
Date: Thu, June 26, 2014 9:34 am
To: "McElhaney, Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "Farmer, Casey" <CFarmer@oaklandnet.com>, David Kakishiba
<junji@ebayc.org>, Tom Clifford <tom@cliffordmoss.com>,
olis@youthuprising.org
Councilmember McElhaney,
Congratulations on getting a motion passed under such time pressure. And thank y
ou for the invitation to discuss the revised ballot initiative language Friday a
fternoon. Since David will be at an OUSD meeting and I will be at my cousin s wedd
ing, I ve asked Olis Simmons to step in as a community-based organization represen
tative.
We are excited to see the finish line (for this leg, at least) ahead.
Best regards,
Anne
Anne Marks
Executive Director, Youth ALIVE!
Training Director, NNHVIP
3300 Elm Street
Oakland, CA 94609
(510) 594-2588 x306
www.youthalive.org
@YouthALIVE510
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:49 PM
To:
Cc:
Johnson, Bradley
Subject:
Tom and Lynette--glance at updated language this wkend
Attachments:
2014 PublicSafety special taxBallot Reso w_ ballot question titl
e psc changesstakehdrs-6.24.14).docx
Hi guys,
Attached is the updated language based of off today s meeting (which went really w
ell. Go Lynette!).
Please give me your thoughts. The only language I am missing is the David Mohamm
ad language (Lynette, please forward to me). I took a stab at the short term and
long term scaling language (written in a comment box), but it is not there yet.
Please review this over the weekend and I ll insert the David Mohammad language an
d go through these changes with Kathleen on Monday.
Thanks and have a great weekend!
Chantal
________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
From: Greg McConnell <gmc@themcconnellgroup.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 10:37 AM
To:
Subject:
Measure Y
Lynnette and Tom
Thank you for agreeing that the Measure Y ballot measure will be amended to incl
ude language that
specifically authorizes landlords to pass through 50% of their Measure Y Parcel

Tax to their tenants. As I
indicated, that provision is very important to my major JHC landlord members and
without it they will
require me to oppose the Measure. I did not address that yesterday in deference
to your concerns
about getting past the minimum staffing level controversy, however, now that you
have moved past
that, the language needs to be drafted. Richard Illgen in the City Attorney s Offi
ce told me he already
has language that he drafted in prior years.
Let me know if I can be of assistance.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
To:
Subject:
RE: HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
It s just a hold - Waiting on confirmation from Gallo s scheduler.
To: McElhaney, Lynette; Cook, Brigitte
Subject: RE: HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
good - do we have noel committed, too?
-------- Original Message -------Subject: HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
From: "McElhaney, Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Tue, June 17, 2014 4:28 pm
To: "Cook, Brigitte" <BCook@oaklandnet.com>, <tom@cliffordmoss.com>
Meeting Request
[Accept] [Decline]
If you accept, this meeting will be added to your Calendar automatically.
Meeting Name:
HOLD - Safety & Services Mtg
Location:
Council Office
Start Time:
Mon, Jun 23 2014 4:00 pm
End Time:
Mon, Jun 23 2014 5:00 pm
Conflicts in the Next Year:
None
Description:
Waiting for confirmation from CM GalloNNMeeting request fromT. Clifford.NNN
Comments:
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 1:10 PM
To:
Cc:
Johnson, Bradley
Subject:
RE: Tom and Lynette--glance at updated language this wkend
Hi Lynette,
Thanks for sending your strikeouts and small edits. I will make sure I bring the
m up when I go through the draft with Kathleen in our meeting. The only change t
hat I know she won't just insert is the tenant pass-through language. I can try,
but I'm almost certain of the outcome already.
I read the tenant pass-through language that you have in this draft and I notice
d that it doesn't match the language in the original measure y or bb. It seems t
o be changing the recently passed ordinance by the passage of this measure. Is t
hat accurate and intentional? I want to be clear in my conversations
with the attorney's office, particularly if it is new language which it seems to
be.
Thanks!!
Chantal
-----Original Message----From: McElhaney, Lynette
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Cotton, Chantal; tom@cliffordmoss.com
Cc: Johnson, Bradley
Subject: RE: Tom and Lynette--glance at updated language this wkend
Chantal,
Attached is the draft accepting the proposed deletions with my minor revisions t
o include additional language in Community services, oversight and adding back t
he prior Exemption for tenant pass-through.
Thanks much, Lynette
Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Representing the Heart & Soul of the Town Oakland District 3 |1 Frank Ogawa Plaz
a, 2nd Floor |
Oakland, CA 94612
P: (510) 238-7003 F: (510) 238-6910
For Scheduling: Contact Brigitte Cook (510) 238-7245 or BCook@Oaklandnet.com
-----Original Message----From: Cotton, Chantal
Sent: Fri 6/27/2014 7:48 PM
To: tom@cliffordmoss.com; McElhaney, Lynette
Cc: Johnson, Bradley
Subject: Tom and Lynette--glance at updated language this wkend
Hi guys,
Attached is the updated language based of off today's meeting (which went really
well. Go Lynette!).
Please give me your thoughts. The only language I am missing is the David Mohamm
ad language (Lynette, please forward to me). I took a stab at the short term and
long term scaling language (written
in a comment box), but it is not there yet.

Please review this over the weekend and I'll insert the David Mohammad language
and go through these changes with Kathleen on Monday.
Thanks and have a great weekend!
Chantal
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 7:36 PM
To:
McElhaney, Lynette; Farmer, Casey; Cook, Brigitte
Cc:
tom@cliffordmoss.com
Subject:
language for the packet - decisions needed
Attachments:
FINAL 2014 PublicSafety special taxBallot Reso w_ ballot questio
n title (PSC
changes7.2.14crc-nored).pdf; FINAL 2014 PublicSafety special taxBallot Reso
w_ ballot question title (PSC changes7.2.14crc).pdf
Hi guys,
I apologize I didn t get a chance to send this over again before it went to print.
I incorporated most of
Lynette s changes except for the occupant and tenant language which the Attorney s o
ffice would not
budge on. I put that language below (from original M-Y) because we ll need to figu
re out the strategy on
that.
A few updates:
1.
The draft language wth these changes was shown to CPAB yesterday and I ve
emailed it to my
MYOC today.
2.
MYOC has serious issues with the oversight function and may cause a funk
about it. They will
likely take a vote of things they d like to include and send to the full council f
or the 15th.
3.
They also have a funk about not being involved sooner in the process. I
cleaned it up a little, but
not nearly enough.
4.
I sent the language to Amy, Anne, and Bruce. I know they want to add som
e more changes. Give
me an okay if you are alright with the following idea for those changes and I ll s
end out the
email:
a.
I send an email saying we know we were unable to fit in all the desired
things they
wanted based off of the PSC meeting direction
b.
I ask them to redline their desired changes on the clean version of the
text (which I can
send out) and to only send over the pages on which they ve made changes (NOT the
whole packet. It is easier that way). They would need to get these to us by Wed.
July 9th.
c.
We prepare a quick memo FROM YOUR OFFICE (I can help write it if you nee
d me to)
that says here are additional community changes that I d like the Council to accept
and
have staff incorporate into the draft before the July 29th meeting
and we include
that
in the 3-day packet next Thursday (July 10th).

5.
If MYOC votes on language, I can include it from staff in the 3-day pack
et as lang we received
but I won t advocate for or against it because we usually don t do that as staff.
What do you think? Call me if you want me to explain this. I had to brain dump s
o I wouldn t forget, but I
understand if it is a bit much for one email!! :)
Happy 4th!!
Chantal
Measure Y tenant language:
13. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to preclude owners from recovering th
e tax from the
occupant. Whether the occupant is charged depends on the occupancy agreement and
the
requirements of the Residential Rent Adjustment Program. Moreover, non-payment w
ill not be a lien on
the property but a personal obligation of the occupant or owner.
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 5:49 PM
To:
Subject:
FW: Suggested amendments to the Safety & Services Measure
Attachments:
FINAL 2014 PublicSafety special taxBallot Reso w_ ballot questio
n title
(PSC changes7 2 14crc)- OPD changes.pdf
Importance:
High
FYI: OPD through Reygan have some small changes in the OPD language. I will incl
ude them in your
memo for Thursday.
Thanks,
Chantal
From: Harmon, Reygan
To: Cotton, Chantal
Cc: Figueroa, Paul
Subject: Suggested amendments to the Safety & Services Measure
Importance: High
Hi Chantal,
Nice to see you last week. Per our conversation at the CPAB meeting please see t
he attached
document with suggested changes. I wasn t too familiar with this version of adobe
so I redlined
a few items and used the cursor tool to indicate added language in blue (changes
are only on
p.3,4, and 6) . Let me know if these changes came through.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
To:
tom@cliffordmoss.com
Cc:
McElhaney, Lynette
Subject:
occupant tenant m-y original language
As promised, see below.
Chantal
Measure Y tenant language:
13. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to preclude owners from recovering th
e tax from the
occupant. Whether the occupant is charged depends on the occupancy agreement and
the
requirements of the Residential Rent Adjustment Program. Moreover, non-payment w
ill not be a lien on
the property but a personal obligation of the occupant or owner.
Chantal R. Cotton
Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Oakland
ccotton@oaklandnet.com
(W) 510-238-7587
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612
________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________
From: Emily Kirby Goodman <emily@emcresearch.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 11:14 AM
To:
Ruth Bernstein; Cotton, Chantal
Cc:
Tom Clifford; McElhaney, Lynette; Kate Worth
Subject:
RE: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Attachments:
14-5234 qst - 11.pdf
Attached is the latest version that reflects all changes, including the CUT to Q
40. Are we good to go with
this?
Thanks!
Emily Kirby Goodman
EMC Research, Inc.
436 14th Street, Suite 820
Oakland, CA 94612
Office 510.550.8932 | Cell 817.501.8157
emily@EMCresearch.com
From: Ruth Bernstein

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:45 AM
To: Cotton, Chantal

Cc: Tom Clifford; Emily Kirby Goodman; McElhaney, Lynette
Subject: Re: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Maybe we should just cut 40. Its really more complicated than doing one general
question. If we really want to know the impact, we should ask the school measure
upfront prior to asking our measure. But I am hesitant to do that.
Can we just cut it completely?
Ruth Bernstein
510-913-9841
On Jul 8, 2014, at 10:16 PM, "Cotton, Chantal" <CCotton@oaklandnet.com> wrote:Ju
st a phrase of my sleepy mind this evening. :)
From: Tom Clifford [mailto:tom@cliffordmoss.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:11 PM
To: Cotton, Chantal
Cc: Emily Kirby Goodman; Ruth Bernstein; McElhaney, Lynette
Subject: Re: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Who is bob?
Ruth, Emily: let's get this in the field. Your call on changes.
On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:59 PM, "Cotton, Chantal" <CCotton@oaklandnet.com>
wrote:
Final comments so help me bob
Page 3: #18: Should we say a continuation of the public safety TAX instead of pub
lic safety measure? They mean 2 different things.
Page 3: #25: Reword to this: Along with SEPARATE FROM this measure, the city cou
ld create a citizen s review board that would have oversight and accountability re
sponsibilities over OTHER public safety services.
Page 5: #40: Generalize it. I forgot to mention this as another thought from the
Mayor yesterday. She feels we are pitting us against the schools here and that
is not the intention. The goal here is to find out if people are willing to pay
for ours and theirs. So maybe if we generalize
it, we can get that as the result?
That is all.
Thanks!
Chantal
From: Emily Kirby Goodman [mailto:emily@emcresearch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 11:14 AM
To: tom@cliffordmoss.com; Cotton, Chantal; Ruth Bernstein
Cc: McElhaney, Lynette
Subject: RE: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Hi all, updated draft attached.
Thanks,
Emily
Emily Kirby Goodman

EMC Research, Inc.
436 14th Street, Suite 820
Oakland, CA 94612
Office 510.550.8932 | Cell 817.501.8157
emily@EMCresearch.com
To: Cotton, Chantal; Ruth Bernstein
Cc: Emily Kirby Goodman; McElhaney, Lynette
Chantal, Lynette:
See our responses below to the mayor's concerns (in CAPS). We've also re-worked
the citizen oversight question.
Ruth is sending a revised draft shortly. Chantal, I need you to get CAO sign of
f ASAP so that we can get into the field.
One other major issue: double check the 75 word language to make certain that t
hese are the words the city attorney will
sign off on AND - we are using the word IMPROVE twice in the ballot laguage. I
think is a a fair thing to say, given that if this
does not pass and we don't have these revenues things will certainly worsen. Th
at said, the CAO, Lynette, Chief and
everyone need to be ready to stand behind the IMPROVE language in the face of op
position claiming it is a lie.
Thanks. Again - Chantal, we need approval on this ASAP today.
tom
-------- Original Message -------Subject: RE: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services
Measure
From: "Cotton, Chantal" <CCotton@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Mon, July 07, 2014 6:54 pm
To: "Ruth Bernstein" <ruth@emcresearch.com>,
<tom@cliffordmoss.com>
Cc: "Emily Kirby Goodman"
<emily@emcresearch.com>, "McElhaney,
Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>
Edits from the Mayor: (no particular order)
1.
Q6: Just put 1 year and not 2 because 2 years ago crime was higher.
THIS IS A TRACKING ISSUE - WE WANT TO ASK IT THE SAME AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST. N
EED TO LEAVE IT THE SAME FOR IT
TO BE ACCURATE AS A TRACKER.
2.
Q25: I know this is being responsive to Rashidah, but it is inaccurate
here. The Review board is not the same as the
oversight board/commission. Is there a different way to ask the questions Rashid
ah wants? Do you believe that a citizens
review committee should hire or fire the OPD chief? NOTE: This is not in scope w
ith the rest of the poll and it could change
the direction of things. But the mayor threw it out as a very rough possibility.
CHANGED - SEE NEW DRAFT.

3.
Negatives in Q32-Q39 seem to be too negative according to the Mayor and
there seems to be too many of them. Her
ideas:
a.
Combine numbers 32 and 36
DONE
b.
Can we make the negatives a bit more general so we don t give the oppositi
on specific examples of what will and won t work? E.g.,
for Q34, can we end it at prevention programs are not working. ?DONE (FOR 34)
c.
Is there a way that we can test the opposites of the negatives? E.g., t
hat we will retain 50ish officers if this does pass?
ADDED
d.
Should we ask about if people will support it because they ll otherwise lo
se 50 officers?
ADDED
e.
Most importantly, is there a way that we can state the truth or disclaim
the negative statements in the poll or in the results? The
statements are OPINIONS and not fact and the Mayor wants to make sure that the r
esults don t state them as facts. So if we can state that in the survey or in the
results, that would
be ideal.
WE ALREADY DO IN THE INTRO TO THIS QUESTION.
That is all I have in my notes from her. Let me know if I need to further clari
fy any of this.
Thanks!!
Chantal R. C.
From: Ruth Bernstein [mailto:ruth@emcresearch.com]
To: Tom Clifford (tom@cliffordmoss.com)
Cc: Emily Kirby Goodman; Cotton, Chantal
Subject: FW: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Tom,
Do we really have to include this? How does the Charter measure relate to the pa
rcel tax? For regular voters, I think we need to make more of a connection if we
want to ask about
it. Also, asking if you are more or less likely to support our measure because
some other measure is on the ballot (not that the other measure passed, just tha
t it's on the ballot) is
going to be totally confusing for voters. Can you help us out here a little? Is
there a way you can make a connection that will get with Dan wants?
From: Kalb, Dan [mailto:DKalb@oaklandnet.com]
To: tom@cliffordmoss.com
Cc: Cotton, Chantal; Ruth Bernstein
Hi Tom,
Good talking with you this afternoon. Here is the question that I would love to
be incorporated into the poll in some fashion:
There also may be on the ballot this November a Charter Measure to provide the c
ity s Public Ethics Commission with greater independence, broader enforcement
authority, powers and responsibilities, and a budget for staffing to enforce com
pliance with ethics-related laws. Would having this Governmental Ethics Measure
on the
ballot make you more likely to or less likely to vote to approve the Public Safe
ty parcel tax extension measure?
Obviously, you would want to tinker with the language to make it fit into the po
ll. As an fyi, the ballot question description comes from the City Attorney s lang
uage.
Thanks for considering this.
-Dan
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 9:48 PM
To: Kalb, Dan
Cc: Cotton, Chantal; Ruth Bernstein
Subject: New Draft Poll for Safety and Services Measure
Dan,
Draft poll to go into the field late next week. We need any and all feedback fr
om you by July 1. Reply all so that Ruth and Chantal can track feedback. Note
that
this is an N-400 with limited space, so we have to be judicious in what we cover
.
Thanks!
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
To:
Bruce Nye (bruce.nye@gmail.com); Anne Marks (amarks@youthalive.org);
Amy Fitzgerald (afitzgerald@oaklandcommunity.org); rrichman@ifpte21.org;
saten@ifpte21.org
Cc:
Subject:
The documents are finally available on Legistrar!
All, you can review the documents on legistrar now. I apologize for the difficul
ty with our technical issues. Please forward this along to whoever needs it. We
will still be creating a personal webpage for the Measure Y successor today just
to make it easier to find things, but in the meantime, this is a great
resource for all docs.
Link: https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1663535&GUID=CB0D4E
44-CB50-4D97BBD2-7970671BC495&Options=&Search=
Thanks!
Chantal
Chantal R. Cotton
Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Oakland
ccotton@oaklandnet.com
(W) 510-238-7587
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
To:
Subject:
FW: RE City Council Item 12, Public Safety Tax
Attachments:
July 14 14 ltr to Council re Safety tax 3.docx
Importance:
High
FYI
From: Hom, Donna
To: Cotton, Chantal; Schlenk, Sarah; Johnson, Bradley; Orologas, Alexandra; Todd
, Amber; Gardner,
Henry
Subject: FW: RE City Council Item 12, Public Safety Tax
Importance: High
FYI.
Donna Hom
Donna Hom
Interim Assistant City Administrator
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza #301
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-2038 (Phone)
(510) 238-2223 (Fax)
(510) 238-2007 (TDD)
From: Rachel Richman [mailto:rrichman@ifpte21.org]
Subject: RE City Council Item 12, Public Safety Tax
Importance: High
July 14, 2014
Hon. Pat Kernighan, President
Oakland City Council
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Item 12, Public Safety Tax
Dear President Kernighan and Members of the City Council:
We apologize for the lateness of our comments. The related documents were not p
osted until this morning.
Like most Oakland residents, we strongly support the renewal of the public safet
y tax.
We are writing to raise serious concerns about the budget implications of the pr
oposed Public Safety Ballot Measure. As currently written it could have a catas
trophic impact on the city budget. We believe that without reasonable modificat
ions, the measure will create a
structural deficit that will return the City to 2008-2009 budget crisis levels e
ven when revenues are growing because expenditures will grow faster.
700 minimum staffing levels
It s dj vu all over again Yogi Berra. When the original Measure Y was first enacted, i
t called for a minimum staffing of 739 officers. During the recession, the inf
lexibility of this number resulted in layoffs of hundreds of civilian employees
and some police officers. In fact, voters passed Measure BB to eliminate the mi
nimum staffing level.
Base line cost
The measure requires that the City shall hire and maintain no fewer than 700 swor
n police personnel at all times after July 1, 2016.
In 2016, it is estimated that the minimum cost of 700 officers will be $223.9M o
f which less than 10%, $12.5M will covered by the revenue from the tax. In 10 y
ears, the minimum cost of 700 officers, using City projections will increase $11
0M over the 2016 level while the property tax will increase just $4M. Of note i
s that $110M is about the same amount the City currently budgets for all non-swo
rn General Fund programs.
We caution you that setting a staffing level without adequate tax revenue to fun
d this measure is fiscally unsound. The City estimates that even with additional
academies, the City will need to maintain 720-750 officers to avoid dropping be
low the 700 mandate. At 750, this is an additional $8+M in 2016 alone without t
he support costs listed below. This will be even more challenging since 22 offi
cers are currently funded through soft money, limited duration grants which, if
ended for any reason would add a minimum of $3.5M in costs. Further, if the num
ber drops below
700, even for one day, the loss of funding would be triggered. We know of no bu
siness, organization or government of Oakland s size that calculates staffing on a
day by day level.
Revenue vs. Expenditure Gap
By the City s own General Fund Revenue projections, police costs will increase at
5% a year while General Fund Revenue will increase at a considerably lower rate.
This means that at best, core city services which were eviscerated during the
recession will take years and perhaps decades to restore to 2007 levels. At wor
st, remaining city programs will need to be cut to meet the mandated staffing in
the measure.
City figures do not include true Police costs The City s estimated cost for an act
ual officer is accurate. However, costs that are not included (but that are not
ed elsewhere in City documents) are the following:
*
Equipment including cars, radios, computers, desks and weapons
*
Ongoing training and academies
*
Overhead costs like payroll and janitorial services
*
Support service costs like fingerprint technicians, clerical and adminis
trative staff
*
Costs of higher-level sworn staff to meet the span of control requiremen
ts in the NSA
These all add millions of dollars in costs to maintain the mandated 700 officers
.
Finally, since Police will have guaranteed minimum staffing levels (which Fire a
lready has), the City could quickly find itself forced to lay off critical non-s
worn staff, cut wages and benefits to a non-competitive level and/or reinstate f
urloughs and service cuts or a combination of all of these.
Use honest numbers
If the City leadership moves ahead with the 700 minimum staffing level, we urge
you to be honest with the public about what services
illegal dumping, graffiti a
batement, libraries, parks and recreation programs, and senior centers will take
years or decades to restore to 2007 levels and which of the services will likel
y never be restored. While the 700 minimum may be ideal, the impact on every ot
her aspect of City programs is substantial.
Exceptions
The measure allows a waiver of the 700 Officer level in very restricted circumst
ances but requires the City to make Findings of fact that it is necessary to redu
ce the number of budgeted and sworn police personnel to a specific number in ord
er to avoid causing more harm to the City s residents and businesses that will be
caused by a reduction in sworn police personnel.
This requirement is a nearly impossible threshold test to meet and there are no
standards or criteria included in the proposed measure to guide that decision.
By comparing apples to oranges, not apples to apples, there will be many uninten
ded and unfortunate consequences.
For example, will City services funded by the General Fund like economic and bus
iness development, Neighborhood Service Coordinators, parks, libraries, support
services for frail seniors, summer camps and after school programs for children
and youth, affordable housing and arts meet the test in that kind of comparison?
How will internal city functions meet the test? Generating payroll, broadcast
ing official city meetings, fixing computers, cleaning buildings, making repairs
to city facilities, financial audits, grant writing and report backs, contract
review, legal services, language access to services, housing habitability inspec
tions, ethics investigations, matching funds for grants, assistance and obtainin
g business loans are just a few examples.
These are all functions necessary for government transparency and accountability
; services that attract businesses and create livable, sustainable, and yes, saf
e communities.
Next steps
As you consider the measure before you we urge you to examine the budget impact
of the minimum staffing proposed and set a staffing level that (1) can reasonabl
y be met and (2) limits the extreme budget impact on all other city programs. W
e urge you to eliminate the apples to oranges test required in the exception cri
teria.
We ask that you be straight with the public and your employees about the impact
on all the other City programs. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
s/ Rachel Richman
Policy and Political Director
cc: Mayor Jean Quan and Councilmembers, Renee Sykes, Vice President and Vickie
Carson,
Lead Representative, IFPTE Local 21
________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
From:
Sent:
To:
Donna;
Cotton, Chantal
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:53 AM
tom@cliffordmoss.com; McElhaney, Lynette; Johnson, Bradley; Hom,
Sanchez, Arturo M
Cc:
Bedford, Sara; Whent, Sean
Subject:
FW: OCO feedback re: Safety and Services Measure, Agenda #12
Attachments:
OCO Safety and Services Feedback.71414.docx
FYI: OCO on minimum staffing and still trying to change the funding allocation d
ecision making process (which administratively is not as simple as they make it
seem).
From: Amy Fitzgerald [mailto:afitzgerald@oaklandcommunity.org]
To: Kalb, Dan; Kernighan, Pat; McElhaney, Lynette; Schaaf, Libby; Gallo, Noel; B
rooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; Kaplan, Rebecca
Cc: Luby, Oliver; Gerard, Jennie; Farmer, Casey; Stoffmacher, Bruce; Garzon, Cla
ra; Jones, Andre;
Mossburg, Pat; George Cummings; Richard Speiglman; Cotton, Chantal; Johnson, Bra
dley; Billy Dixon
Subject: OCO feedback re: Safety and Services Measure, Agenda #12
DATE: July 14, 2014
TO:
Oakland City Council Members
FROM: Oakland Community Organizations
RE:
Feedback on Safety and Services Measure
OCO strongly supports the renewal of the Safety and Services ballot measure, bel
ow you will find feedback regarding particular sections of the proposed draft.
Progress Made
We are encouraged by the progress that has been made in the legislation that ref
lects our organizational priorities:
*
Focus resources on strategies and services that prioritize individuals a
t highest risk of being victims and/or perpetrators in gun violence and homicide
*
Fund components of effective Ceasefire implementation, vis--vis both inte
rvention services and law enforcement (i.e. case management, re-entry services,
joint case review,
Program Management, CRTs, etc)
*
Enhance the Oversight function to include more front-end planning with r
elevant city departments
Issues that still need to be addressed
RE: Section 4. Planning, Accountability and Evaluation
In 6. Duties of the Commission, in clause (g), we would like to see includ
ed language that states The City Council must hear The Commission s report and reco
mmendations
prior to approving any funding allocations. This is important because it reflect
s that the Commission s recommendations/input will be taken into serious account b
y the City Council
when funding decisions are made, rather than coming after money has already been
allocated. City staff will need to create a viable timeline for Commission rev
iew of departmental
priority spending plans and subsequent report delivery to Council prior to the s
tandard budget cycle for the relevant departments.
RE: Section 2. Maintenance of Sworn Police Personnel
As reflected in multiple Staff Reports from the City Administrator s office
regarding the staffing threshold of 700 sworn police personnel at all times, thi
s maintenance of effort criteria
may significantly affect the current and future General Purpose Fund. The 700 n
umber is based on multiple funding sources, one of which is a COPS grant that pa
ys for 22 officers and expires
in Summer 2016 (according to June 12 Staff Report). Within 18 months of passage

, the City will already be in a position of not being able to meet the staffing
threshold without significant
funding from the GPF or exercising an exception option to lift the threshold, gi
ven the expiration of the COPS grant. Additionally, as the cost of officers inc
reases more rapidly than does the
projected GPF growth, the City will be forced to use an ever-increasing percenta
ge of the GPF to cover the staffing threshold. There is no way the City can mee
t this threshold without significant
cuts to other basic services that contribute to public safety and the overall we
ll-being of Oakland residents.
While Council may be considering the inclusion of a 700 sworn police perso
nnel threshold as an electoral necessity, it is essentially setting dangerous an
d disastrous fiscal policy
for the next ten years. This policy will certainly disappoint all constituencie
s over the long-term, as basic services are cut due to GPF diversion to maintain
the staffing threshold and eventually
as the staffing threshold is lifted via exceptions due to the inevitable realiza
tion that the City cannot continue to meet the threshold and ensure basic servic
es. Additionally, with the inclusion
of the 700 officer threshold, the Council will perpetuate a recurring divisive d
ebate of constituencies falsely labeled as pro-police or pro-service as this mainten
ance of effort
language will force significant political battles over the course of the Measure
, particularly when Council seeks to exercise one of the exceptions.
OCO leaders recognize the need for a balanced approach of law enforcement
and prevention services. We also value sustainable, balanced fiscal policy that
ensures our City s
ability to meet all of the community s basic needs. Given our values, we believe
that a compromise can be achieved by lowering the staffing threshold to 678 swor
n police personnel,
essentially removing the number of officers corresponding to the expiring COPS g
rant. Additionally, OCO recommends to substitute average in place of at all times.
If the
GPF currently funds 618 officers and the Safety and Services Measure will provid
e a floor of 50 sworn police personnel (according to CAO staff), then a 678 offi
cer threshold can viably be met
without significant impact on other core services. Additionally, it would not f
orce the Council into a near-term debate over the exercise of one of the allowab
le exceptions once the COPS
funding runs out. Ideally, we construct this measure so that the exceptions are
never needed. We do more to rebuild voter and community confidence by promisin
g a realistic
staffing threshold that can be met, and even possibly exceeded as additional gra
nt or other funding is identified, without having to make significant cuts to do
so.
Please contact OCO Executive Director Amy Fitzgerald (afitzgerald@oaklandcommuni
ty.org;
510-459-4130) with any questions regarding this memo.
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
To:
Cc:
Bedford, Sara
Subject:
FW: City Council Item #12 Measure Y
Attachments:
EarlyChildhoodAmendmentsMeasure Y7-15-14.docx
Importance:
High
FYI. See below

From: Perez, Alicia
To: Gallo, Noel; Schaaf, Libby; Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Stoffmacher, Bruc
e; Farmer, Casey;
Garzon, Clara; Luby, Oliver; Kaplan, Rebecca; Reid, Larry
Cc: Alvarado, Josefina
Subject: City Council Item #12 Measure Y
Importance: High
Dear Councilmembers:
Safe Passages has been serving young children and youth throughout the City of O
akland for the past 19 years. A critical area of intervention has been with youn
g
children exposed to violence. There is much evidence regarding the long term ef
fects of exposure to violence on young children including reduced learning poten
tial, normalization of negative/violent
behavior, and even reduced cognitive abilities.
Safe Passages proposes the following amendment to the proposed legislation to en
sure that our youngest, most vulnerable population is fully included as part of
a continuum of
service for children and youth exposed to violence in our city.
Amend Page 6 of Oakland City Council Resolution 78734
Proposed Ordinance Creatin
g a Special Parcel Tax, as follows:
3. Community-focused Violence Prevention and Intervention Services and Strategie
s: invest in and engage the community in collaborative and
data-driven violence reduction strategies directed at those at highest risk ofvi
olence: strategies such as:
b. Young Children Exposed to trauma or domestic and/or community violence. Expan
d existing City programs and City supported programs that intervene early
with young children (0-8) exposed to trauma or domestic and/or community violenc
e including but not limited to preschool/school mental health
consultations, in home services and other support services.
Analysis:
*
There are 26,099 children ages 0-5 in Oakland, representing 28.3% of you
th under the age of 20. Yet the Measure Y allocation for these programs is less
than .08% of the $5 Million allocation for all intervention programs combined.
*
Vast research demonstrates that Exposure to violence at an early age has

great consequences in the long term ability to perform well academically and so
cially.
*
Children exposed to trauma and/or with developmental delays early in lif
e are more likely to enter Kindergarten with learning deficiencies and are likel
y to enter
the Special Education school system.
*
Without intervention that includes family counseling, child therapy, par
ticularly for children with disabilities, we are not as a city targeting the roo
t of the problem
from the very start.
*
In 2012, Measure Y was providing services to over 6 early childhood cent
ers located in Oakland s most violent police beats; this year, we are only serving
2
Head Starts.
PLEASE CONTACT ALICIA PEREZ AT (510) 325-7447 FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR FOLLOW UP.
Thank you for your support.
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
From: tom@cliffordmoss.com
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:05 AM
To:
Cotton, Chantal; McElhaney, Lynette; Farmer, Casey
Subject:
Public Information One-Pager
Attachments:
OaklandSafetyMeasure_InfoCard_4.pdf
Chantal, Lynette, Casey:
Attached is a first draft of a one-pager (front back) on the renewal measure. P
lease review and get me edits today if you can. Chantal - if we need city attor
ney review, go ahead and
send to them - this is not an advocacy piece, it does not say to "vote for the m
eausure" it merely provides information on the history of the measure and what i
t will do if approved by
the voters.
I need to go final on this by Monday in order to print in quantity for Tuesday.
Thanks all!
Tommy

PRR 5505 Response - Emails

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PRR 5505 Response - Emails

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

________________________________________________________________________________

From: tom@cliffordmoss.com [mailto:tom@cliffordmoss.com]

From: Cotton, Chantal

specifically authorizes landlords to pass through 50% of their Measure Y Parcel

in a comment box), but it is not there yet.

in the 3-day packet next Thursday (July 10th).

From: Ruth Bernstein

To: Cotton, Chantal

Emily Kirby Goodman

CHANGED - SEE NEW DRAFT.

in Summer 2016 (according to June 12 Staff Report). Within 18 months of passage

FYI. See below

Vast research demonstrates that Exposure to violence at an early age has

Você também pode gostar