📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Alameda County Grand Jury
• 2024-2025
Oakland's Poor Stewardship of Measure Q Jeopardizes ITS Effectiveness Executive Summary In March 2020, Oakland voters
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 12 findings
F25-17
Page 50
The Oakland City Council added the “extreme fiscal necessity” clause to Measure Q without open discussion and public debate.
F25-18
Page 50
The Measure Q ballot language passed by voters in March 2020 did not define what constitutes an extreme fiscal necessity.
F25-19
Page 50
The declaration of extreme fiscal necessity allowed the Oakland City Council to divert funds intended for additional park services
F25-20
Page 50
In its last disclosure of the maintenance of effort calculations, the City of Oakland reported a decrease in Measure Q funding for new park services from 45% to 32%.
F25-21
Page 50
To date, community park stakeholders and Oakland city staff still do not agree on a definition of “extreme fiscal necessity.”
F25-22
Page 50
Measure Q requires biennial reports, and the Oakland City Auditor did not conduct the second biennial audit covering FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024.
F25-23
Page 50
Measure Q was not included in the Oakland City Auditor’s FY 2024-2025 workplan.
F25-24
Page 50
As recommended and funded in Measure Q, no independent financial audit has been conducted.
F25-25
Page 50
Oakland’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission complies with the reporting requirements in Ordinance No. 13622 (an ordinance updating the duties of the commission).
F25-26
Page 50
Oakland’s Commission on Homelessness has not met its oversight mandate of Measure Q including the preparation of annual reports as required by Ordinance No. 13584 (an ordinance updating the duties of the commission).
F25-27
Page 50
The City of Oakland has not prepared annual reports documenting revenues, expenditures and the status of projects funded by Measure Q as required by California Government Code 50075.3. 49 2024-2025 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
F25-28
Page 51
It is difficult to observe Oakland’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meetings recorded on Zoom due to poor broadcast capabilities. (The Commission on Homelessness meetings recorded on KTOP are broadcast with better video and audio than PRAC meetings.)
Recommendations 8
-
R1Page 48Development of performance measures, with emphasis on reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness in or adjacent to city parks.
-
R2Page 48Facilitation of citizen oversight on homelessness efforts with the city bringing regular operational and expenditure reports to the Commission on Homelessness, and that the Commission establish a regular agenda item for the purpose.
-
R3Page 48The Commission on Homelessness fulfill its statutory obligation by publishing an annual report including a section on Measure Q.
-
R4Page 48Conduct an annual audit of Measure Q funds collected and expended, as required by California Government Code sections 50071.1 and 50075.3.
-
R5Page 48For future special tax programs, the City Administrator’s Office initiate a best practice policy requiring an annual report on revenues, expenditures and the status of open projects, to make sure that the City satisfies California Government Code sections 50071.1 and 50075.3. Based on the findings in the auditor’s report, the Grand Jury is of the opinion that the city was not prepared to implement or evaluate the services mandated by Measure Q. Annual Reporting Reporting is required by the State of California for special parcel tax measures. Government Code section 50075.3 requires the chief fiscal officer to file annual reports with its governing body (for Oakland that would be the finance director, reporting to the city council) on the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of associated projects. The Grand Jury learned that the finance director submitted a Measure Q funding report to the city council in March of 2022, documenting revenues and expenditures, but did not include the status of associated projects. Reporting to the city council is also required by the two oversight commissions (PRAC and the Commission on Homelessness) associated with Measure Q. Local ordinances have specific reporting requirements for parcel tax measures (Ordinances 13622 and 13584). The Grand Jury researched the city’s website and conducted interviews with city staff and discovered that while PRAC was in large part compliant with ordinance requirements, the Commission on Homelessness was not. 47 2024-2025 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Concern Over Measure Q Expenditures The lack of reliable reporting, audits, and the declaration of extreme fiscal necessity has led park advocates to question if Measure Q funds are being spent in accordance with the measure. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission outlined concerns in its annual report covering Fiscal Years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024: “During the reporting period, funds from Measure Q were allocated to other unrelated city expenses under the framework of extreme fiscal necessity despite stated concerns from PRAC and park advocates.” Examples of other questionable expenditures include:
-
R6Page 49In FY 2020-2021, salaries of three police officers and a high-level human services employee, including the director, were charged to Measure Q. After concerns were made public, these charges were reclassified and not charged to the measure.
-
R7Page 49Capital expenses associated with Union Point Park were charged to Measure Q. Park advocates asserted that the measure’s funding is meant for maintenance and minor repairs, and not capital projects. The Grand Jury learned that the city attorney opined that this expenditure was allowed under Measure Q, and the matter is still being challenged.
-
R8Page 49Excessive charges for high level administrators: for example, 6.4 positions in the city administrator’s office at a cost of $3.9 million that had previously not been billed to Measure Q. Given these concerns, the Grand Jury is alarmed by the fact that no annual financial audit has been conducted for Measure Q since it was passed. CONCLUSION When voters choose to tax themselves for specific purposes (e.g., park maintenance) they expect increased services to be provided. The Grand Jury finds the lack of transparency, accountability, and reporting by the City of Oakland is troubling, creating serious doubts about what Oakland residents are actually getting from Measure Q. The Grand Jury calls for better stewardship of Measure Q. Maintenance of effort requirements should be protected and implemented whenever possible. The declaration of extreme fiscal necessity should be resolved based on transparent criteria. In addition, biennial and financial audits must be conducted as prescribed by the measure. The Oakland City Council needs to provide better oversight of the implementation of Measure Q. 48 2024-2025 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________