I support the staff and volunteers at Oakland Animal Services. They continue to serve Oakland's animals despite years of overcrowding, staffing shortages, and inadequate resources.
The recent tragedy involving Miranda's Rescue has exposed what many of us have known for years: Oakland's animal welfare system is stretched beyond its limits. While the facts continue to emerge, this situation demands accountability and action.
For too long, OAS has relied on volunteers, fosters, rescue partners, and private donations to perform what is fundamentally a public responsibility. Taxpayers are already subsidizing these failures with their time, money, and labor.
My question is simple: What is Oakland doing to reduce the number of animals entering the shelter system in the first place? You've failed to date.
What investments are being made in affordable spay and neuter services? What support exists for pet owners facing financial hardship, housing challenges, or behavioral issues that lead to owner surrenders? What measurable goals has the City established to reduce shelter intake?
You have failed the animals, the volunteers, and the taxpayers who have repeatedly stepped in to fill gaps left by the City. We cannot continue focusing only on what happens after animals arrive at OAS. By then, the system is already overwhelmed.
We deserve transparency, taxpayers deserve accountability, and Oakland's animals deserve better.
The FY 2026-27 Mayor’s Proposed Midcycle Budget keeps Oakland operating, but it does not resolve Oakland’s structural budget problem. It funds a $2.27 billion citywide spending plan, reduces the General Purpose Fund from the previously planned level, preserves basic police, fire, violence prevention, homelessness, library, recreation, and cleanup services, and expands capital work through Measure U.
It also leaves major concerns unresolved: limited proactive public safety capacity, a $5 million homelessness funding gap, possible loss of 190 beds, no dedicated fleet replacement funding, and continued dependence on Measure E to meet voter-approved obligations for parks and police staffing.
Please detail where the $500,000 from the General Fund to assist meeting the Measure Q MOE is budgeted. It does not define the uses for the funding being added.
I support the staff and volunteers at Oakland Animal Services. They continue to serve Oakland's animals despite years of overcrowding, staffing shortages, and inadequate resources.
The recent tragedy involving Miranda's Rescue has exposed what many of us have known for years: Oakland's animal welfare system is stretched beyond its limits. While the facts continue to emerge, this situation demands accountability and action.
For too long, OAS has relied on volunteers, fosters, rescue partners, and private donations to perform what is fundamentally a public responsibility. Taxpayers are already subsidizing these failures with their time, money, and labor.
My question is simple: What is Oakland doing to reduce the number of animals entering the shelter system in the first place? You've failed to date.
What investments are being made in affordable spay and neuter services? What support exists for pet owners facing financial hardship, housing challenges, or behavioral issues that lead to owner surrenders? What measurable goals has the City established to reduce shelter intake?
You have failed the animals, the volunteers, and the taxpayers who have repeatedly stepped in to fill gaps left by the City. We cannot continue focusing only on what happens after animals arrive at OAS. By then, the system is already overwhelmed.
We deserve transparency, taxpayers deserve accountability, and Oakland's animals deserve better.
Thank you,
Kelsey Piro
The FY 2026-27 Mayor’s Proposed Midcycle Budget keeps Oakland operating, but it does not resolve Oakland’s structural budget problem. It funds a $2.27 billion citywide spending plan, reduces the General Purpose Fund from the previously planned level, preserves basic police, fire, violence prevention, homelessness, library, recreation, and cleanup services, and expands capital work through Measure U.
It also leaves major concerns unresolved: limited proactive public safety capacity, a $5 million homelessness funding gap, possible loss of 190 beds, no dedicated fleet replacement funding, and continued dependence on Measure E to meet voter-approved obligations for parks and police staffing.
Please detail where the $500,000 from the General Fund to assist meeting the Measure Q MOE is budgeted. It does not define the uses for the funding being added.