NEW RELEASE: AUDIT OF THE REVENUE MANAGEMENT BUREAU’S BUSINESS TAX COLLECTIONS PROCESS

On April 2nd, my Office released an audit report about the Revenue Management Bureau (Revenue Bureau) of the City of Oakland’s Finance Department.

During the 2024-25 midcycle budget process, the City Council requested and provided funding for the audit, amid concerns that the City was not collecting all the business tax revenue it was owed. The audit, contracted by the City Auditor’s Office, assessed the Revenue Bureau’s billing and collection of applicable City taxes and fees, and identified how the Revenue Bureau could increase collection of City taxes and revenues. The audit covered business tax collection activities from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. During this time, annual business license revenue ranged from a low of $101 million (Fiscal Year 2021-22) to $123 million (Fiscal Year 2023-24).

The audit concluded that the Revenue Bureau did not collect all revenue owed to the City, did not have sufficient systems in place to ensure accurate and timely billing and collection of City taxes and fees, had not sufficiently collected taxes and revenues from identified businesses, and did not have sufficient processes for identifying businesses subject to business tax. You can read the full report here.

NEW RELEASE: AUDIT OF OAKLAND POLICE OVERSIGHT AGENCIES: THE OAKLAND POLICE COMMISSION, THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW AGENCY, AND OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

On April 8, 1966, Oakland police officers entered the West Oakland home of Luther Smith, Jr. (photographed), without a warrant, and beat him and his family members. The case provoked immediate public outcry and demands for community police oversight. This photo shows Luther Smith, Jr., protesting police violence and calling for an Oakland police review board on 14th Street, in Oakland. Source: 1966, Oakland Post Photograph Collection, MS 169, African American Museum & Library at Oakland Public Library.

On March 10, 2026, Oakland’s Office of the City Auditor released a report about the City agencies tasked with providing independent oversight of the Oakland Police Department (OPD): the Police Commission, Community Police Review Agency (CPRA), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).  

Each of the three agencies has a distinct role in promoting constitutional policing in Oakland. After a 2003 Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) requiring OPD to implement 52 reforms and bring OPD into federal oversight, the City established the police oversight agencies due to further misconduct. Voters approved Measure LL in 2016, establishing the Police Commission to oversee OPD’s policies and procedures, and CPRA to investigate complaints of police misconduct. In November 2020, voters approved Measure S1, which amended Measure LL, expanding the independence, authority, and staffing of the Police Commission and CPRA, and establishing the OIG to review OPD’s compliance with reforms mandated through the 2003 NSA. 

The objectives of the audit were to assess the extent to which each oversight body is acting in accordance with its City Charter and Municipal Code requirements; identify obstacles, if any, each oversight body faces in meeting the requirements laid out in the City Charter and Municipal Code; and evaluate the extent to which the oversight bodies provide effective oversight of OPD. The audit covered January 2020 through December 2025, and found: 

• The Police Commission and CPRA have not yet implemented all previous audit recommendations from the Office of the City Auditor’s 2019 performance audit.
• The Police Commission, CPRA, and the OIG met 26 of 43 select City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. 
• Vacancies, frozen positions, low minimum staffing requirements, and leadership turnover have hindered the police oversight agencies’ ability to fulfill their legally mandated duties. 
• The City Charter and Municipal Code are inconsistent and conflict on the hiring and removal of the heads of CPRA and the OIG. 
• Structural independence – functional separation from the City Administration in matters of budget and hiring, for example – would help to ensure the police oversight agencies have sufficient resources and administrative authority to meet their legal mandates. 

The audit report includes two recommendations to address the findings. The first calls for the City Attorney’s Office to independently analyze the agencies to identify the resources they need to meet their legal requirements. The City Attorney’s Office is independent, is uniquely positioned to factor legal requirements, and previously completed a similar analysis for the City Auditor’s Office. 

The second recommendation calls for the City Council to adopt revisions to the Municipal Code and pursue changes to the City Charter as needed, to resolve conflicts between the Municipal Code and the City Charter to resolve conflicting language. The audit notes that an earlier proposal to revise the enabling ordinances following the passage of Measure S1 has been pending Council consideration since early last year.  

The Office of the City Auditor will follow up on the statuses of the audit recommendations twice per year as part of its semiannual audit recommendation follow-up process. The City Charter also requires recurring audits of the Police Commission and CPRA by the City Auditor’s Office every three years. This audit brings the Office current on that requirement. 

You can read the full report here.