Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Article XVIV (Third-Party Food Delivery Services) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries) Establishing a Temporary Limit on Charges Imposed by Third-Party Delivery Services During the Locally Declared State of Emergency Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.  (Community Development 256)
And in fact, I think I've actually seen I can't remember if it's in Alameda or if I've been someplace else. I've been out of Alameda lately. But but the bicycles have, you know, either pulling a trailer or with special panniers with thermal containers and stuff. So the point there being if Uber eats and Lyft were to pull out of the California market, but I'm with you, Councilmember O'Day. I doubt that they will. And I mean, I think that there could be some creative alternatives that spring up in their wake. And so, I mean, I don't want to diminish the value of these services because for some, you know, I would always urge people when you're ordering takeout and I hope you are to take out from your local restaurants as often as you can. Please try to go and pick it up yourself. Walk when the weather there is nice to get some exercise. I drive if you must, but. Or take your bike. But. But there are some people, as we all know, who simply aren't able to do those things. And they they need to be home because they may be more vulnerable to COVID 19 for health reasons or age or what have you. So we don't want to minimize the value of these. And so, you know, to that extent, I hope and I'm confident that some services will continue to exist. But know I think it's time for some bold steps. These are the grand. And when you think of what we're looking at in balance, are restaurants that are just barely holding on, some of them. And if we can help put a little more revenue back into their into their coffers by minimizing the fees that are taken out of them by these by these delivery services, I think it's the right thing to do. So with that, Councilman Brody, you have you end up. Sure. I'd like to make a motion then to approve the emergency ordinance. That is the. Limit at 15% for fees charged to restaurants and freeze customer fees at the current rate per the city attorney's recommendation. By the way, what is that current rate for my desk? It's quirky. You have that. It varies based on it varies based on each of the companies and location and a number of different factors. Okay. But it would be frozen as of the date that this ordinance is passed or the second reading, I guess. Well, it's emergency, but that's I don't know if the report was published. Okay. Let's hear from the city attorney, then, Councilmember Vela. Are you seconding Councilmember Vela, the city attorney? Just to clarify, this was actually a regular ordinance that's brought before you. But but when the emergency is declared over, that it is okay. Exactly. But we're proposing the freeze occurs on the date of the publication of the staff report to Prevent Gaming, which is episode 21. Okay. All right. Answer my question. Thank you. Councilmember Geller, you had your hand up. So I do have a concern about that, capping the fee on the consumer, because I think in many ways a lot of these companies have hidden fees elsewhere. So for instance, like in San Francisco with some restaurants, if you go to their website, you scroll down and you order directly through their website, you'll get the actual menu cost. But then if you click on the order online tab on top, which pops up as part of the marketing and you go order through DoorDash, they charge you on every item on the menu, but they get around it because they still cap the fee. So I do have a question about how the capping works and if there's other ways around it. I'm just wondering if we could bifurcate this where we pass the ordinance as written tonight, but then kind of I would like a little more understanding of like how we can. Because it just seems like what they'll do is they're going to hide it in menu item. They're going to they could just price shift on the items. I guess that's just a question that I have for the city attorney, because we can't really regulate that. Is that correct? So a couple of thoughts, Councilman Councilmember Bhalla. One of them is that this ordinance does contain a prohibition on prices charging for a price higher than a price set at the retail establishments. And the language we would propose, and if I may read it for the council, I think will be broad enough to capture hidden fees. And we would propose something to the effect of it would be it shall be unlawful for a third party food delivery service to increase anything costs or commission or establish any new fee costs or commission with respect to customers beyond those established on September 30, 2020. And if the Council desires additional flexibility for staff, the Council could also add another provision that allows the City Manager to implement additional administrative regulations to to implement this ordinance, which would give staff additional flexibility to try to monitor gaming. But we are proposing fairly broad prohibitions. And then another question, and that is, if I know that there were some attempts, there was a couple community members who were attempting to see if they could essentially start a company or provide a service where they would do local deliveries, working with restaurants. If they started that before September 3rd, are they then prohibited from changing their prices if they need to adjust to account for what they're trying to do? Because they just started out. I think this ordinance would create that prohibition because it would essentially cap prices in place that was already charged as of September 3rd, if there aren't any. That would be a very different story. Obviously, if they if they've not started charging that, obviously that be a very different story. But there are currently customer fees that are in place and those would be allowed. They just can't be increased. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. I, I think my I guess my question is, I know that we have some folks that are trying to coordinate with local businesses. I'm just wondering if there's a way. I think what they're trying to do is very different from the other third party model. But but the the clarification seems like is that this applies to everybody. And we can't just we can't distinguish between those words proprietor owned and versus another third party service that that's employing or actually, I guess trying to bypass employment and contracting with. Well, it strikes me that if our objective is to protect our restaurants that are the ones that are struggling so much and also protect our residents who, you know, some of whom have been financially impacted by this pandemic, that we would want them protected, whether it's by. Large delivery companies or small community run ones that maybe the smaller community run ones wouldn't have the same needs to. I charge such high percentages that it's. Yeah. I'm just I'm just curious because I, I and I don't know what the, the local ones are charging. I don't want to see price gouging. And I think that that's our ultimate goal and I share in that. But I also want to make sure that the person providing the service is actually getting paid for their work. So if we're going to have, let's say, a bike delivery service or somebody tried it out, let's say by car, but now they want to shift a bike, but the cost might be more. Is that going to be permissible under this or is that not going to be permissible? Like if they if they mode shift? Does that make sense or is it just going to be the set the set rate? Or if they were doing it by bike before and now they're switching to car and there's additional costs, are they allowed to factor that in? Sounds like there's a cap on fees that city attorney or members. How do you see this? It's. Also, if I'm all right, I guess we'll go ahead and I'll I'll come back to my comment. And Councilmember, I'll point out one additional exception that we have put into the ordinance to guard against an unconstitutional takings, which is that any company, whether out of town or in town, has the ability to demonstrate proof that the limitations established constitute a concept, an unconstitutional takings, which is that we're essentially depriving them of the ability to establish a fair return, much like in the control context. And so any company who is able to demonstrate that proof is able to seek an exception from the city. So there should not be any companies that are not able to make the Constitution constitutionally reasonable return under the ordinance. Councilmember Odie. I mean it mode shifting is a concern. You know we couldn't allow a higher fee for those that practice mode shifting in Alameda. I don't know. Maybe that's another way to incentivize it. Well, if you deliver by bike, then you can go to 18%. Just an idea. So I go back to the, um, the second sentence in second paragraph in the executive summary of this item, which is in order to ensure food security and to safeguard the welfare of restaurant employees and customers who rely greatly on restaurant industry, on the restaurant industry. During this pandemic, SAP is recommending that third party delivery service fees for restaurants be limited to 15% of purchase price until the local state of emergency ends or indoor dining resumes at 100% capacity, whichever comes later. We're not doing 100% capacity for while. I think what I would suggest is that perhaps the best course of action, because I think the need is immediate for established restaurants is to move forward with this. Now, we can always come back and modify if we find that, oh, these new delivery services are springing up and they're they're running into difficulties. But then we could actually have some documented cases rather than speculation. My thought. Councilmember Gilet your answer? Yeah, I just the reason that I'm raising these questions is, for instance, 15% of $15 is $2.25. And so if I have a $15 order from from side Street and I need to pick it up and bring it somewhere, the drivers driving over there, picking it up and then leaving. I just think there's also just a general concern in making sure and I do think that there's an inherent value in trying to find some sort of local, local run delivery. I just don't want to kind of throw that out with taking on these bigger companies that are price gouging and doing it to help their their shareholder costs and prices rather than the actual worker. So I do want to recognize the work in in doing the pickup and the delivery. And anyways, I'll support this either way tonight. I just want to be I would like us to keep track of that and to look at that. And if it does become a problem for it to come back to us, because I also think that this is a necessary service right now, especially with the air quality and the pandemic. And so I don't want to be in a situation where we we cut ourselves off. Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said, but I just feel that we could make a stronger ordinance when it's based on some actual documentation which may indeed be coming in. Councilmember somebody. I think I think that's right. I mean, I I'm sympathetic to that as well. But I agree with the mayor's comment that we could look at it again. But, you know, I've been to the Lyft headquarters, and I've just got to imagine that the overhead on, you know, four or five people in Alameda starting something up versus a company that has a huge building in San Francisco with hundreds of employees doing a bunch of admin and not delivering. I think it's got to be a lot less. And I think that their profit model would be different than than the larger companies. But, you know, if it's a problem, I'm happy to relook at it. So. Okay. Anything further to remind me? Do we have a motion? Councilor. Rudy, you made one of your about to. You made. I did earlier. Thank you. Was it seconded? Not yet, I don't think. Okay. Yeah. I'll second I'll second to the motion provided that we are keeping track and that we monitor this and have it come back. With that direction. Yes. Okay. For me. All right. Any further discussion? I just want to add, I just really quickly want to add I'm sorry that these these big third party delivery companies are not hurting for money they've spent. They are spending $180 million trying to get out of paying their workers and paying their benefits. And I think that this is a strong statement that we can make that that's just not okay. And that in Alameda, you don't price gouge and that you treat your workers with respect. So thank you all. Thank you. All right. We've had emotion. We've had a segue and we've had great discussion. Thank you, everyone, for that. Madam, quickly, we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Not quite. Hi. Rudy. Hi. Fella. Hi, Mayor. As the Ashcraft. I. That cares. Bye bye. All right, good work, everyone. Thank you, Staff. Thank you for all your hard work putting this report together. Thank you. Thank you, city attorney. All right, with that, we move on to item six e more Roman numerals. I got this one introduction of ordinance amending the municipal code by amending various provisions of Article eight Sunshine Ordinance of Chapter two Administration concerning special meetings, including the setting and noticing of such another meeting. All right. So this is coming to us. My iPad always freezes once in a meeting. So. Somebody went to jail for better mayor.