A working management framework for sustainable fiscal planning, executive decision support, and organizational accountability.
This site is intentionally layered: scan the fiscal condition, test how the management system responds, then examine the experience behind the approach.
Start with Oakland's structural gap, long-term liabilities, reserve floor, and revenue-risk profile.
Executive fiscal view →Switch among Baseline, Adverse, and Opportunity cases to see how assumptions change the decision posture.
Interactive Scenario Lab →Connect the proposed operating model to demonstrated public finance, budgeting, analytics, and transformation experience.
Why Kobie | Evidence →Condition → drivers → risks → management response, with each number traceable to source and assumption.
Five-year outlook cited by the City.
Unfunded pension liability.
Long-term benefit-cost exposure.
Policy minimum.
Oakland's forecast shows GPF revenue growing from approximately $779.01M in FY2025–26 to $909.13M in FY2029–30. The comparison uses an illustrative expenditure path to make the recurring-balance question visible.
Recurring imbalance requires recurring action, not reliance on one-time balancing resources.
Source: City of Oakland Five-Year Financial Forecasts. Scenario expenditure paths are candidate illustrations, not City forecasts.
A static forecast answers “what is expected?” A scenario model asks “what would change the decision?”
Maintain the City's published revenue trajectory; test expenditure growth, monthly variance thresholds, and recurring Roadmap actions against the structural imbalance.
Prioritize recurring savings/revenue, preserve reserve discipline, and separate temporary relief from permanent solutions.
Model logic: revenue growth + expense growth + volatile-revenue shock + personnel pressure + Roadmap realization.
Scenario controls demonstrate candidate model logic. They are illustrative decision tests—not predictions or City policy recommendations.
Reconcile budget, actuals, positions, liabilities.
Driver-based five-year view + scenarios.
Variance bridges + root cause.
Options, tradeoffs, risks.
Owner, milestone, realization.
Forecast savings ≠ approved savings ≠ implemented savings ≠ realized savings.
| Roadmap action | Status | Financial lens | Next gate | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Update financial policies | IN PROGRESS | Risk limits / reserves | Oct 2026 | Adopted policy + thresholds |
| Infrastructure / fleet / systems plans | IN PROGRESS | Lifecycle cost + funding gap | Dec 2026 | Funded plan + operating impact |
| Maximize existing collections | IN PROGRESS | Recurring realization | 2025–28 | $ collected vs baseline |
| Strengthen revenue base | IN PROGRESS | Growth + sensitivity | 2025–28 | Incremental recurring yield |
| Pension + benefit plans | IN PROGRESS | Liability trajectory | Ongoing | Scenario + funded actions |
Source: City of Oakland Roadmap to Fiscal Health. Candidate scorecard structure.
Map decision calendar. Confirm authoritative data. Meet departments.
Reconcile drivers. Assumption register. Prototype dashboard.
Variance review. Risk thresholds. Roadmap tracker.
Scenario cadence. Process improvements. Staff analytics.
The portfolio is designed to demonstrate the capabilities Oakland is seeking rather than simply assert them.
Advised across the University of California system and helped redesign a roughly $25B budget framework.
UC systemwide reforms associated with approximately $500M in recurring fiscal impact and efficiencies.
Public-finance and investment-banking experience spanning more than $5B of public offerings and complex financing analysis.
At Dell, built multidimensional BI/Tableau reporting linked to enterprise data to support executive oversight of a multibillion-dollar cost transformation associated with the EMC integration.
Harvard Kennedy School MPP with concentrations in Business–Government Relations and International Trade & Finance.
West Point graduate and former U.S. Army Combat Engineer Officer, complemented by public, corporate, banking, and advisory leadership.
My objective is not to give executives more data. It is to give them the right information at the level required to make a decision—and retain enough analytical depth underneath it to answer the next question immediately.