Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP HR17-104 and award a contract to Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., of Newport Beach, CA, for healthcare, employee benefits consulting, and actuarial services, in an annual amount not to exceed $350,000, for a period of five years with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to issue a Blanket Purchase Order to Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., of Newport Beach, CA, for healthcare, employee benefits consulting, and actuarial services provided during the procurement process and additional months of transition, in the amount of $140,000. (Citywide)
Motion carries. Thank you. Number 20, please. Report from Human Resources and Financial Management. Recommendation to award a contract to Alliant Insurance Services for health care, employee benefits, consulting and actuary services, and an annual amount not to exceed 350,000 citywide. Thank you. Let's go to staff. Vice mayor, councilmembers. This item was continued at the May 15th meeting. Our H.R. director, Alex BASKAS will walk us through the report. Good evening, city council members. Before you is a recommendation to award a contract to Alliant Insurance Services to perform employee benefits, consulting and actuary services on behalf of the city with an annual base amount of $224,000, with an end with an additional recommendation of $126,000 for additional studies or services. Please note that there's a correction on the requested contract term that is reflected in the council letter. Human Resources is requesting the Council approve a contract term of three years with three one year options as specified in the request for proposal for a total of up to six years. Human Resources is also requesting the Council to authorize a blanket purchase order to alliant in the amount of $140,000 for services provided during the procurement process. The city utilizes a benefits consulting firm to provide technical expertize to assist the city with the development, negotiation and implementation of health and other employee benefits. This is important to maintain a valuable and cost effective employee benefits program, which includes a self-funded PPO and fully insured HMO health plan. The PPO plan covers roughly 2600 employees, and the HMO covers approximately 1600 employees and their dependents and their dependents. The consulting services also provide also assist the city in evaluating the entire benefits program for quality, competitiveness, cost effectiveness and compliance with plan, administration rules and regulations. They also assist us in evaluating career renewal calculations and assist with the development of budget projections in our budget process. They also conduct benchmarking, benchmarking studies and identify and recommend cost saving options for the city, and they also assist in the development of employee communication materials. Alliant was selected through an RFP process with the oversight of the procurement division. A total of seven proposals were received, including the Incumbents Alliance and a panel consisting of human resources, staff and financial management analysts was comprised and they selected Alliant because of their experience in the Public Sector Plan Benefits Area and also their strong service model and comprehensive services to support the city's strategy of cost containment and providing an employee benefits program that's beneficial for all employees. This concludes our report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Miss Vasquez. I know there's been. I really know how to characterize it, I guess. Miscommunication, the last time the item came forward. There had been some concerns expressed by one of the employee groups, and we were assured at council that those concerns had been alleviated. I felt uncomfortable at that time and asked that it be continued and then was contacted afterwards saying that the concerns had actually not been alleviated and that some of the things that had been expressed at council by staff, maybe there was not a meeting of the minds in terms of that which you know is going to happen . I understand that. But I think it puts us in a difficult position because we have to make these credibility calls. I have a few concerns about moving forward with the contract tonight. First, I want to thank you for the diligence that you've put into the work through the RFP process to get to the point where a client is selected. And I have no concerns with the recommendations that Alliant be the company that we go with. I do I do. Wish. However, to receive kind of an update from you in regards to have there been concerns expressed by any employee groups about going with Alliant and if so, what has been their proposed solution? Councilmember, just to address the first part of your statement there, there was a miscommunication in terms of us understanding what the union concerns were. We spoke with one representative and we thought we had address those concerns. And then when we spoke another to another representative, we found that there was additional concerns. So we have had several conversations to attempt to address those concerns. And primarily the outstanding issue is that the the union believes that the city should hire a secondary benefits consultant and the city should also cover the cost of that additional consultant. And let me just kind of back up and provide a little bit of history. Last year, through Emory University, Asians, the Poea negotiated a letter of agreement that allowed or gave them an avenue to hire a benefits consultant that which they would cover the cost. And that consultant would review the renewal process for the medical plan, alongside with the city's benefit consultant, a client. And through that process, some of the other union groups also participated in that process with them. They the unions did not opt to go that route this year. But I understand that they have raised a concern recently, and they would like the city to, as I indicated, hire a secondary consultant and cover the cost of that secondary consultant. Let me ask you this. Did the procurement of an initial consultant by some of the labor groups result in any cost savings for the city? So the the process where we use the additional consultant identified some areas that where we could save money but also identified additional costs. And in our other plan, the PPO plan. So they identified savings in the HMO and they were projecting save additional costs in the PPO plan. Our consultant took a look at those projections and also provided feedback. There was different methodology used between both of the consultants. I think that's where some of the differences were. But ultimately, the city did achieve savings, primarily with our consultant negotiating with Anthem, the provider that took place over a series of months. Okay. So so there was some additional efficiency finding efforts that were not funded by the city, but did result in the city realizing some benefits, financial benefits. I think I think that's a little difficult for me to say that it was just solely based on the secondary consultant. I think it would be fair to say that it was as a result of the Alliance consultant negotiating directly with Anthem and also as a as a result of the city's buying power, if you will. And then in addition to that, if you recall, in August, we had an issue with Anthem and Memorial Care, and that garnered a lot of publicity and it impacted could have impacted a number of our employees. So that also gave us leverage to negotiate a further reduction in the rates. Okay. So in your opinion, what is the downside of having a secondary review at this point, if that's what the labor organization is asking for? What's the downside to the city? So we have I have conveyed to the unions, if they choose to continue the pilot program an additional year based on the terms that we negotiated with them and this council approved meaning that the union would pay for the consultant. We would be supportive of that process. My understanding is that they've opted not to do that and they are seeking for the city to cover the costs. My concern initially with with that proposal would be that there would the city would be paying for duplicate services. And I understand that concern. So I have a proposal that's possibly a compromise, and I'd ask my colleagues to support it. So by way of motion, I would be requesting our city auditor to conduct a review of the proposed contract with Alliant Insurance Services for Health Care, Employee Benefits, Consulting and Actuarial Services, and to report back to the City Council. Within 30 days in order to provide. An update or if the study is complete assurances that the agreement that is currently negotiated and on the agenda tonight for approval is fully evaluated and provided to all parties. And I'd ask for my colleagues for their support. Can we get a second on that? I'm sorry. This is part of the part of the motion that you're making, right? Okay. So there's a motion in a second to that customer. Pierce. Yes. I want to thank Councilmember Price for bringing this motion forward. And I do have some comments around the process. You know, we asked for a meeting to happen two weeks ago and typically is not what I like to do behind the rail. But we asked for a process two weeks ago and we had, you know, lots of back and forth and different stories about what meetings were canceled, who canceled where, what miscommunication there were. And it seemed like a hot potato. And meanwhile, my staff spent the entire day trying to track down what really happened and what the real concerns were. And having, you know, as Councilmember Price mentioned, the last meeting, we were told one thing, that an organization was okay with the vote and then found out later that they, in fact, were not. So I have a real concern with the process and the way that this was handled. And so as we move forward, I think outside of having our city auditor do this, we need a process that ensures that before something like this is brought back to council, that everybody is on the same page so that we're not all running around trying to track down the truth somewhere in between everybody's stories. I would like to make sure that we have power to fire all the unions if there's something like this coming forward that when we get a word from our director of h.r. That everybody's good and we're a go, that we can trust that and this is the second time that it's happened where we were in a position where we couldn't we didn't know what to what to trust and who to believe because everybody comes with a different story. So it's something as major as this, you know, with a contract that could go out six years. I just want to make sure that there's process and oversight. And so ensuring that we do have the city auditor take a look at this, I think that's a right decision because we're not going to be kicking the can down the road or asking for a delay, which I know was a topic that was brought up. So I do support this because I believe it will move us forward quickly so that we don't incur higher cost, as was talked about today. So I also encourage our colleagues to support this. Thank you. I do have the city manager that's cued up. I know. And the city attorney. Mayor, councilmembers. I do want to just put a little push back on that. Four weeks ago, the issue was a union wanted to do a meet and confer. That was the issue. It was determined that day that they didn't have the ability to do a meet and confer and that was put to bed. It's been the past four weeks. Then there was an issue that we should potentially be selecting a separate vendor instead of alliance that seemed to get put to bed and then something came up back again on Friday. So I do want to say this has been a very moving target. I want to say everything that you've heard from our h.r. Director has been true. She's given you up to date information. What has happened is different sides. The story has changed as other people went back and different unions are talking to each other and stuff. Alex has been on the phone with the unions today to see what happened and which story has changed and who's changing their mind and all that. So it is very, very fluid. So it's shifted again, even though it's been four weeks. It shifted to late last Friday for a meeting with the unions to discuss what's before us tonight with the extra consultant. So basically, I do want to point out that we can certainly talk about, you know, coming back with a consultant or something. But I do want to know that let you know that we're saving approximately we're spending about $11,000 extra per month by not assuming this contract. So this past four weeks has cost us 11,000. And as we continue to go, we're not achieving the savings that we negotiated through Alex with this contract. Mr. Parkin. Thank you, Mayor. And I'm just looking at for actually clarification of the substitute motion and what is being asked of the city auditor. Are we approving this contract and you're asking the auditor to look at this evening? Is that the recommendation or you want to wait on taking action on this to have her review? I'm not sure what she's reviewing or you having her look at the benefits of having a second company who duplicates the efforts to some extent, possibly. No, my my motion was to have her conduct a review of the proposed contract that's before us tonight that we're not approving. It would remain proposed with Alliant Insurance Services for health care, employee benefits, consulting and Actuarial Services, and report back to the City Council in order to provide assurances that the agreement or proposed contract is fully evaluated and provided to all parties. So your statement, if I am sorry, I don't I just wanna make sure I understand. But to so the audit would be out of the RFP process itself, not the actual contract that was written. The actual proposed contract. The contract would be me would we reviewed by me. If you if you're looking at an audit of the process, I think the auditor may be the appropriate partner. So I'm not I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for in the contract or the order to do. I mean, certainly the other can look at whatever you wanted to look at, but yeah, the legal document would be mine. Sure, sure. And I understand that. And I guess maybe I should be clear. I'm not asking that the city auditor evaluate the legal terms of the contract, but that she evaluate the terms of the contract as they relate to health care, employee benefits, consulting and actuarial services, and to provide for us to us in terms of whether or not there have been look, we've just heard from Alex that others have retained or procured services from others at the at their own costs to evaluate these contracts and come back with recommendations that have saved the city money. I understand that it's costing us $11,000. But my understanding, unless I'm wrong, is that the last review that was done by a different Labor organization resulted in savings for the city that were far in excess of $11,000 or $22,000 or whatever it may be. That may be wrong. That may be wrong. I see the city manager shaking his head. This is not a conversation that we should be. If I'm wrong, then then maybe I'll just turn it over to the city manager to answer on that. I'm just going to go with what Mr. Vasquez said, that certainly the Keenan group was a very, very substantial group and they gave options for a client to work with. But honestly, Anthem would have never come to the table for any of the things that Alliant wanted or Keenan wanted. Unless we have that that tragedy between Anthem and Memorial Care last year that opened the door for us for a client to do some heavy duty negotiating. So Alliant did the negotiating. And I'm we're certainly going to take input from any group that provides advice and stuff but we're alliance save the day. And I get that and let me just reiterate because maybe that part wasn't clear. I have no issues with Alliant. I, I started my comments with commending our director for the excellent work of the RFP process. What we're trying to do is bridge a gap here between a labor organization who feels that there could be additional reviews of this contract to identify efficiencies and practices that maybe we have not identified that could save the city money. And I'm hearing the city say we don't believe that's necessary. We believe that's due flip duplicative and we're not willing to pay for it. So my compromise and the city auditor is okay with this is to have the city auditor take a look at some of those elements and components and make sure that we are basically having a second set of eyes on the services. That we are procuring through. Alliant for, for this contract. It's, it's. It's a long contract. We're talking about the costs of the monthly cost to us right now, but we're looking at a multiyear contract. And I just don't know, other than the $11,000, what the downside of having the city auditor take a look at it and make sure we're getting the the best possible deal that we can in the most efficient way that we can. I don't know what the downside of that is, if, in fact, it might bridge a gap between our employees and the city. Because, frankly, I'll be quite honest, I don't feel like the communication story is good right now because I feel a little bit of pushback in just expressing concerns. If I may. So just for again, I'm sorry, clarification, but if we're asking the auditor to look at basically the scope of. Work to make sure that nothing was left out of the proposal or nothing should be added to that so that a client is looking at everything that they, the auditor, believes should be included. Is that a fair summary? Let me ask the councilwoman. I think that's correct. And, you know, Councilwoman Pierce has seconded this motion, so I'd like her to weigh in if she wants to clarify the scope of the audit by the city auditor, because I certainly don't want to speak for her as the secretary of the motion, so I'll turn it over to her. Customer Pierce. Thank you, Councilmember. I just for me, I seconded this because I feel like we've got the two studies and what we would like. What I would like to see is the auditor, take a look at both of those studies and compare them and give us that feedback. She could also audit the process and maybe it's between both her and your office. But the fact is that we have two different studies. Instead of going out and having a third study to have our auditor give us a breakdown where those discrepancies and are there other cost savings and is this the best? Does she advise us on on taking a yes vote on this contract? I, I follow the last part. Does she advise taking a yes vote on the contract? What I don't follow is that we have two studies. We have an RFP and we have a process that is being recommended tonight. And I understand that you would like the auditor to take a look at what that process and what that recommendation includes to to therefore, you hear from the auditor whether her office believes it's a it's a good move forward or that something else should be maybe added or it should be started over, whatever her recommendation be is . Yeah. So I was looking at both what the city has and what the policy has. That study that they took a look at and that we're comparing all the documents that we have around this around this contract. So I think what you've said is, yes, it's correct. We'll go with that. And I think also and I think. It shows how how complicated some of this stuff is. And to put it in front of council to vote on, we just want to make sure that we're making the right vote. So it's not to say that that it's a bad vote or that we don't support moving forward. It's that it's a it's a big decision for us. And we want to make sure we're doing the right thing. And I think just to clarify to I think it's the request is not necessarily an audit per se, but it sounds to me it's a review and some recommendations to the body as to all the information that's available that's been available through the process. And certainly there have been reports that have been commissioned and completed by some of our labor groups that those would be included in her review so that it's all reviewed. And then I'm sure she will get back to this body, whether it's in a memo or at the council, just her opinion on all the information she has before we move forward on the contract. So I think I think that's the request, if I captured it correctly or not perfectly. And so there's a motion and a second on that request. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I'm confused. And I have a bunch of questions now. So the last. So my understanding and trying to simplify this, my understanding was last time we did this, there was a study conducted by by the Police Officers Association. Am I right? Mr.. Mr.. WEST Okay. And this was a third party independent consultant. Yes. Okay. And that study happened before the award. Was was it was given out or concurrently. When did that study happen? Alex That was after, right. So that that review conducted by Keenan was conducted last year during what we call our renewal process. So that would have been in June of 2017 in preparation for finalizing our 2018 plan year rates. Was that before Alliant was given the contract or after? So Alliant currently has the company already had they have the contract currently? Okay. We had we went out to RFP because we've had a contract with them for a number of years. And through the RFP process, Alliant was selected. Okay. So it seems to me like the conversation here, but before I even get to that. So, so my understanding, Councilman Price, so you already had this conversation with the city auditor and she said she was okay with doing this. Yes. I mean, where I'm trying to flesh out based on what what. The scope of everything here. Is saying, because it's a moving thing. And I get it what we want. But she's on board with taking a look and taking it. Okay. Did she talk about any cost to her? Because I know there was cost with the with the outside review. With any cost because she get it done in a month. I don't know. Okay. I don't know. And that's why I said 30 days. She could give us an update or, you know, if she has recommendation. And then the delay. Ms.. Vasquez, you said there was a certain amount per month delay on this. Yes. The cost of not entering into the new contract with the client, with the rates that they proposed in the RFP, would cost us $11,200 a month. Okay. So if the last time this happened, it seems to me because both organizations reach out to our office as well and figure that it was going to be worked out. But what it seems to me is that both so everyone on the council they've spoken has said, hey, you know, we have no problem with Alliance doing the work. But it appears that last time there were savings, you know, 30,000 went into a study, 750,000 came back. That's that's the word. That's not necessarily the case. But folks are really, truly concerned about it. And is there any risk to this operation? If we were to say employee groups put up the money, if savings exist, we pay the employee groups back. That way you don't start off at a deficit of $11,000 a month. And so I put that on the table to Councilman Price. Is that the goal here? Is it to save money and not necessarily enter into a contract when two groups are both saying the same thing? It is. But I also believe I believe our auditor can get back to us within 30 days with an update, by the way. And I do believe that it is a function that she could perform with existing resources. Perhaps the cost of who pays for this study is something that can be negotiated into future contracts with these different groups. But I think going piecemeal with each group, when we can get that checks and balances we're looking for through the city auditor would be the best course of action. I guess I guess what I what I'd like to do is just keep it clean. Keep it clean. Like, if there's a contract in front of us, if there's willingness on behalf of the council and the employee groups to say, commission a study and get the city attorney involved, then we just handle that. And we not necessarily expose ourselves to $11,000 of being outside of the contract. And if it comes back that there are no resources, then all we did was just spend $11,000. And and this is the second time that we've inserted the city auditor into a contract bid process, the second time that we've done that kind of on the fly. And I really don't like the practice of doing that on the fly without the full council being engaged in that conversation. But not necessarily just, you know, some of us. Well, this is a good time for all of us to be involved in that, certainly because we're all here in open court. I to say open court. It's here where, you know, we're on the record. We're all talking about it. But I will say, if the alternative is we just approve a contract that some people are uncomfortable with, I'm not willing to do that. Okay. But that's just me. Okay. So so yeah, I don't know if I'm if I'm as interested in, you know, doing a substitute or anything like that. But I would say that I think we're not giving enough credence to just simply let's just pay for the study. And if savings come back, we should simply recoup the employee groups if they're willing to step up. And then moving forward, we negotiate that into the contract. In my opinion, that gives validation of what city staff is saying. It gets validation with the employee groups are saying, and we don't set a new trend that we're stopping every contract, you know, the day of with, you know, information from auditors that are here and all of this other stuff. So I'm gonna let it stew a little bit, but I may introduce a substitute, but at this point, I'm going to listen. The rest of the colleagues. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. So just to go back, I hear Alex stating that she does not feel that the savings were significant. And from what claims I've heard, it sounds as though there's a claim that a $26,000 study saved $750,000. But I'm hearing Alex say that that. Can you clarify of what you believe to be true? Or if not you, I'm sure. So during the renewal process, this happens over the course of several months. Correct, Tom? Alliant is our city benefit consultant. And they negotiate with the carriers or on our behalf. They have direct communication with the carriers. In my experience, when carriers give you their initial offer, they always come in high. And so our benefits consultant, with the assistance of staff, negotiate to try to get those rates lower. We also report and work through the Hyatt Committee, which is a committee consisting a rubber representative of each of the bargaining units. And we during this renewal process, we meet monthly, if not twice a month, to go over this process. During that process for the HMO plan, for example, in Anthem initially came in with the 15.6% rate increase. We had a round of negotiation for a 20 plan year 2018. Perfect. Okay. And we had a recap that we had received during the RFP process the prior year. So that also helped us make sure that we didn't get a renewal over a certain cap during that process. As I indicated, Keynan was also reviewing the data that Anthem was using for their rate renewal. They reviewed the data independently and provided a report. The Hyatt reviewed that report. Alliant also reviewed their report and provided commentary. They had different methodologies that they used. They had different assumptions that they used. So they arrived at different projections, if you will, as to what the increase should be from Anthem Justice. So one of the things that's important is just because you believe that our rate should be at a certain amount, you don't always get that rate from the carrier. As I indicated, it is a negotiation process. So I think we were all in agreement that and pointed out some important things and and Alliant agreed with those things as well. But at the end of the day, the final reduction that we got from Anthem was as a result of the the situation with Memorial Hospital and that then the publicity surrounding that with that Alliant was able to go in and negotiate a further reduction in the rates. So where we ended up was with the final increase of 5% on the Anthem HMO plan, which was 1.62% in in the rates and 3.38% in the ACA fees with our mandatory. I see. When you review the Kenan report of two years ago, have you explored all things that they had recommended as potential opportunities for reductions in this next round of contracts? And are there any categories of which potentially need additional exploration? So we're going through the renewal process right now, and we certainly are going to look at any and all recommendations that were made. And we also are going to go into detail with the hiring and review the process. One of the lessons learned in this whole process is that Kenan was able to provide a more detailed review of how the rates are put together by the carriers. And and the hire was very much appreciative of that process. And so that's certainly something that we're going to take and we're going to apply this year with the client and go through more detail with the hiring about how the rates are developed and what goes into those rates. What are the assumptions and where are areas that we can make tweaks to reduce the rates? So are you saying that if we approved this today, which by the way, there's a typo again in our agenda which says it's a five year renewal period which our office has already reached out and I believe the RFP was three years. Is that accurate? So I'm not clear. Again, it adds a little bit of additional concern when our agenda items are inaccurate. Yeah, it does. Villages for that. It should be, as I indicated, a three year contract with three one year renewals for a total of up to six. And I also want to point out that we do have an ability to cut to terminate the contract with a 15 day notice at any point. Okay. It just still goes a little bit to credibility. I mean, and again, I think two weeks ago, Councilmember Supernova found spelling errors of street names. So we just need to be careful and know what we're specifically talking about. So a three year contract. Okay. I'm understanding that, Councilman Pryce, you're asking for Auditor Dodd O'Dowd to look at the rates and categories that Keenan looked at to see if there are additional savings possible. Or efficiencies. Or efficiencies, just a simple review and that she would get back to us in 30 days. Yes. And I believe, based on the scope of the study, it's something that can be done in-house so that we're not incurring an additional cost. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. I think I'm a little less confused. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks to all the questions here. And I do appreciate the constructive efforts to come up with some solutions. I do have a couple of questions. You mentioned Hayek and for our benefit and those listening at home watching, can you explain what that is and what that process is and who is involved in the Hayek. I'm sure. Through the collective bargaining agreements, there is a provision that has created the Hayek, which consists of a bargaining unit representative that is a member of the health plan. We meet on a monthly basis and the Hayek reviews the proposed benefit plan and they review the renewal process. They hear reports from our carriers on utilization. They get also reports from our benefit consultants on trends and demographics and compliance issues such as the ACA and other things that impact our health plan. Ultimately, what the Hayek does do is they develop a recommendation with regard to the health plan and any proposed changes to the plan, and that recommendation is forwarded to City Council or excuse me, to the City Manager for review and consideration. And then we bring to the Council what the final rates are and ask council to approve those rates. And we also include the report from the Hayek that sent to the city manager. And the the and just four, four, four, the acronym stands for our Health Insurance Advisory Committee, correct? That is correct. Every bargaining unit sit at that table, every represented bargaining unit. Every representative has a seat at that. But not all of them necessarily attend the meetings. But yes, all the bargaining units have a seat at that committee. Okay. And the the Elia group, what would be their role in that that Hayek process is that they're consulting, helping to negotiate the the planned benefits design, whatnot, is that correct? So at the at the Hayek meeting, this staff also participate in that committee and support the committee. And the consultants also sit out, attend the meetings and provide reports or answer questions if the Hayek members have questions. Okay. And so there was there was conversation regarding a potential meeting for. Right. So what is the hired process part of the collective bargaining process in itself? And in a sense in that this is the avenue per their M.O. you were they provide input on the employee benefit plan program. Okay. Thank you. And regarding that, we heard something about the Kenan report. Right. And that was an independent study, as I understand it. Who was how did we reach? How did that independent study come to be. So in the play? And will you agreement? There was a during negotiations they requested the ability to obtain their own benefit consultant. So through negotiations we agreed to permit that process. One of the concerns was, is that they, the consultant, in order for them to do their study, needed to have access to all employee de-identified data. We as so we as I indicated, there was a letter of agreement that permitted that with the condition that they pay for the study and that ultimately was adopted by the Council as part of their M.O. agreement. So when was that agreement negotiated? It was that the last round of negotiations? I believe we. Was it separate from the negotiation process? No, it was part of the negotiation process, a part of the entire M.O. negotiation process with POI. So it wasn't a well, it wasn't negotiated during the contract and wasn't like a side letter meeting confer. It wasn't negotiate. It was never. Situated during the ammunition process for their contract. I see. And so the question before us today is whether or not a bargaining unit and I'll just say I haven't been approached or have had any conversations with any bargaining unit regarding this. So I'm being brought up to speed this evening. And that's unfortunate. The the what's before us today is to have the city auditor do an independent review of the proposed contract. Mayor members of the Council. Yes, that's my understanding, is that the auditor would look at what is being proposed and give a recommendation on whether to move forward with what is being proposed by staff. I guess that that is pretty, in my opinion, benign and it just will add some time. I'm not sure if that is from based on what I'm hearing is that that's the real intent of what is the the real rub between the bargaining unit and their desire and what is being requested here. But that said, I mean, I can certainly support it. I've seen quite a few of these transactions happen over the years, and I don't think I've ever seen one. This. This. This. Unfortunately, this. This money. But I'm looking forward to support this and looking forward to the the auditors review and recommendation and assessment of the RFP here . But at the same time, you know, if the Keenan report was an independent audit, I I'm having a little trouble understanding how the city auditor is an independent voice in this matter as well. So. But I'll support this item just for the matter of move it, moving it forward and hopefully getting some resolution. Thank you. Comes from Birmingham and we've got a public comment. Thank you, Mayor. One of the most confusing things about this whole issue here is that there was apparently some negotiation took place apart from all the other bargaining units. And there was an agreement that came with an independent with independent study that apparently the unions paid into it, but did not totally agree with what was being presented in terms of what the cost total cost savings would be. There's a bargaining unit that feels that there could be an additional savings that could be conducted out there, that could be found if we had a, quote, unquote, independent review by our city auditor. I take a little aside from from Councilman Brosnan in the sense that our city honor is not independent. Our city auditor is elected and elected to be independent. So I don't see how that can not come into play here. But, you know, we have members of the IAM present in the audience and perhaps maybe they could shed some light on this issue in terms of what they feel are the main issues in this discussion here. Before we go into into public commentary, perhaps. That would be public comment. So. Okay. Well, then I'm going to get the opportunity for them to do that at that point then as well. But I do support the motion on the floor. I think that it's one it's a review that I think needs to take place if we're especially looking at charter change, where we're going to be adding some responsibilities to our city auditor. This is one of those points where we can have a preview, if you will, of what the city order can do in terms of clarifying those sticky issues such as these that come before us. Thank you. Just one question regarding before your comment. Yes. Just real briefly. I agree completely with Councilman Yarrawonga because I first of all, I don't believe the request by the organization is to have the city auditor look at it, that that was my ability to try to find some sort of compromise. That was the simplest and the least costly option. So I don't even know. I haven't communicated with them if that's acceptable to them. But what I what I'm hearing is there is a breakdown in the process. It's not unusual. I get it. Sometimes labor and management interests are at odds. This to me seems like a very simple ask. I could be completely misunderstanding the issue. I don't know. But they're basically saying we want another form of checks and balances before we sign this contract to make sure we're getting the best deal. Because if there's money on the table that can go back to the city, it could benefit the organization, it could benefit the labor groups. That's what I'm hearing. And we're kind of put in this place now where, you know, we're making. A credibility call. And I will say, when we negotiate contracts, the council relies a lot on staff's opinion and we defer a lot to staff's opinions when we're talking about salary and things like that. To me, this seems like one of those things where there just seems to be no downside to studying it further other than the $11,000, which I hate to waste, but I if we're going to enter into a contract where we could be saving a lot more money, maybe it's not $700,000, maybe it's $50,000, maybe it's $100,000. Why wouldn't we allow ourselves the opportunity to learn that information before we approve the contract, if we can do it in 30 days? So that with that out and absolutely, the city auditor is 1,000% independent from this body. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. And then, Miguel, the public are excellent. Thank you. Public comment. Good evening. My name is Richard Suarez. I represent the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. There was a lot of debate. First of all, I'd like to thank all the everyone involved for taking this matter. I believe this is a serious issue. I'd like to just make some clarifications on the Keenan group. Was an independent body hired by three labor organizations, the Peoria Fire and the IAM, the Kenan Group presented a proposal, if you will, that was significantly less in the area of increases that the Alliance group had presented. It was only after we shared that information with city management, that city management and I can't speak to the process, but it was after the discovery that there was a less expensive raid out there. City management came back and said, there's a savings. Now, the characterization this evening is that that savings came about came about as a result of a previous snafu with Memorial Hospital. And that was the the genesis, if you will, for creating that savings. What I would respectfully ask is, well, why wasn't that option sought after prior to the initial proposal? That was significantly higher. But be that as it may, the city manager believes that that savings came about. That hook, if you will, came about as a result of them owing us something in the final analysis. The Keenan group presented savings. Whether those savings to Councilman Price assertion are 700,000 or 100,000 or 50,000. There are savings. And since our members and I say feel safe to say that the members of the PRA fire and every other labor organization participate in those premiums. We believe that a review by what has been suggested by the city auditor and independent review would be a non damaging non cost issue. So I stand before you this evening to simply say that we're talking about a significant amount of money. And I again, thank the body for bringing this issue up and hopefully I'll address your concerns. If there are any questions, I'll be more than happy to address them. Thank you, Mr. Suarez. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker. I think my my comment will be just on the grassroots level. I spent a little time in human resources on the private level. So I understand what it means to have a human resource manager. I understand what it means to have a city manager. And I understand what an auditor does. The first thing I recognized when I saw that and I read through recommendations to adopt specific specifications and awarded a contract to Alliant Insurance Services of Newport Beach. That was the first red flag. One of the papers or journals that I read here whenever they're available, is a Long Beach business journal where you go through all the accolades of who these people are and what they offer. Long Beach. And they have I mean, you have everything. And I thought, well, we're going to add Newport Beach. Newport Beach is going to provide consulting services for them. But in my opinion, I'm saying why we're going out there, but we always say go beach. You mean there's nobody in Long Beach that can do this for this city? It just said to me and I'm thinking, look how much money we pay that city manager. But we're questioning his judgment. And if Lord Dowd, her position as auditor is so important, why isn't she brought in on everything of this magnitude? Why don't you bring her in? Is she? If she is your go to person when the rubber meets the road, why are you wasting time to bring it here? You listening to this? And I. I have a few alphabets behind my name. It makes me think I'm hearing something I should not be hearing at a public meeting. This kind of decision should have been made behind closed doors. This is nothing we needed to hear. It is an embarrassment. We shouldn't be hearing it. We have a city manager. And Laura, I paid attention to, I don't know, the woman. We've shaken hands maybe once in passing. But I've heard of her accolades. I've heard of the awards that you give her. So you trust her judgment. So now you're going to hold up the city. Again. I think we're hearing something we shouldn't be hearing. And I'm hoping that after tonight or whenever that vote is cast and if you wait this kind of thing, we shouldn't here again. This is something that you take behind closed doors and you settle the issues. What it's saying to me as a public person is you've lost trust with somebody. You're not you're not addressing that elephant in the room. Thank you. And the last speaker. And then we'll go back to the council. I think you're my new best friend. My name is Trent Bryson. Born and raised. Here in Long Beach, we have a local business that's been there since 1969. My father grew up in Rigley, went to Long Beach PI along with State. I have two kids at Long Beach Poly Stanford Middle School, and I'm an adjunct professor in human resources at Long Beach State. Our business was named Entrepreneur of the Year in 2017. We're a local broker. Seven people put in there. There are peace. Three people were chosen as finalists. Not one was local. We weren't even asked to be a finalist. In fact, not one of our references was called. We are told the reason we didn't get is we didn't have the experience to deal with the city. Guess who had the city of the city along with his contract all through the eighties and nineties? Our firm. It just doesn't make sense. So here I am giving back to my community, chairman of the Ball Boys and Girls Clubs, along which. I speak. On behalf of Young Horizons, child comprehensive group Children Today and the one that they asked to come in and raise money. So instead, we continue to give money to a client who's actually based out of Greenwich, Connecticut, and we give them money and we have somebody outside representing us. And then when I ask what happened? Why don't we get a shot? Why don't even we even be a part of the fair process? Nobody has any answers for us. So what I'd say is we're right here. If we're good enough to to run the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach, if we're good enough to be Entrepreneur of the year, for good enough. To be ranked by our peers as top advisors. In the country, for good enough to teach human resources in Long Beach State. Where are we good enough to even have a shot at City of Long Beach? Doesn't make any sense. Half my employees live in Long Beach. I live in Park Estates. We're based on Bixby and 36th Street. We help all of our companies that we represent raise money, bring money into Long Beach. We support our community over and over again. And then when we finally put our bid in, we don't even get a chance. So I don't know the process that you continue to talk about. I will say as an advisor. An extra 11,200 because you haven't signed a contract doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense because you're paying $140,000 in transition assistance anyways. So whatever you're being told sounds to me like a scare tactic. I don't know all the everything that's happening, but it doesn't make sense. The rates are negotiated with the health insurance company. This contract is for who's your consultant. Why would this contract affect your rates? It doesn't make any sense. So I think you guys need to get the bottom of it. And that's just from a resident on that part. That's not even from a business owner. But as a resident and a business owner that lives here, something doesn't make sense and it feels like they're just renewing a contract because that's the contract that's always been there. And I'd say, why not ask somebody who's local that's shown that they can do the work and that's proven themselves over and over again. So thanks for your time. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks. So it's just a couple of things that, you know, that I have to acknowledge. So two things, really. So, one, while I do trust and believe, Councilwoman Pryce, about the commitments from Ms.. Dowd, I know that she has no motivation, no reason to misrepresent those motivations. I believe that the process and the targeted processes, if we're going to commit that office and based on our experience, it typically you know, typically the staff internally does basic stuff and they contract out the real financial analysis. And I just last time this came up, Ms.. Dale came up and said, Yeah, I would hire a contractor. It would take me more than 30 days. So if I heard from her that 30 days is here and will cost me no cost, then that's fine. The second part is truly just the integrity and integrity of the negotiation process. Frankly, when these issues were arise, have when these issues came up before the council meeting and I know they came up because they came you know, they got to me today. Frankly, we should have the council or whoever that was raised. We should have asked staff to kick this back for a week because this process is a messy if we've kicked it back for a week to allow them allow them to one, identify if there are resources to conduct a study and two, or to reach out to employee groups. I think the council wouldn't be bickering or going back and forth about this process. Frankly, it should just be cleaner. And so what I think is I just have a couple of questions. So. Mr.. So, Mr. West, do you can you identify the funding to conduct this third party study? Is that possible. If directed to find the funding? We certainly would, yes. Okay. Can that happen within seven days? Yes. Okay. And can you sit down with the unions within seven days? Yes. Okay. Well, I'd like to propose that we just push this back for seven days. Is a council meeting in seven days? City attorney. City city manager says he can identify the 26,000, whatever it is for the third party study. That also gives us time to hear from the city auditor. And then there can be a recommendation that comes back from city staff that says either we go with a third party, third party recommendation from whatever this group is that costs 26,000. Or we hear from the city auditor from her lips that, you know, she can conduct the same study, you know, for the same amount of money or less in the same time frame. And that will make me more comfortable in this process. So so I'm going to council and price that's either going to be a friendly amendment or a substantive motion. That's really your choice. Well, I don't want to put you in that position. I'm going to make it a substitute motion. You're making a. Substitute. I'll just make it a. I don't. I honestly don't. I know that you feel very strongly about the contract piece. I hope the one week allows us to work some of that out so we don't have to vote on a contract that we're not on board with. But I honestly don't want to put you in that position. So I'll just say I just want to put this as an alternative to the body. It seems like there's a second, and I want to offer that as an alternative. That's fine. I would accept it as a friendly to you. Well, then we'll go that way. We'll take it a friendly if you don't. I just don't want to vote on the contract. I understand. I understand. I just think this will be cleaner. A cleaner process. Okay. So we have a we essentially have the the proposed friendly. So that's the motion on the floor. It's currently there. Councilman Gonzalez. Yeah, I think I think just the overall and we've been hearing it is just the trust on both ends, both from our employee groups and of course from our public and our businesses. And I know Councilmember Mongo and I have been working on the Long Beach Business First Plan and in that and I know John GROSS, if you sat down with us and talked about that plan and we we really want to hit that point again, and I understand if if all the checks are not hit in terms of businesses, not, you know, hitting that criteria, but it seems like they would and have before and it seems that they would be a good, you know, option not to, you know, just say it would be him. But just in general, I think this is a really good example of sort of breaking down that trust with our with our businesses. And then in the employee group section, you know, I, I think, you know, they were pretty loud and clear as to not I mean, even getting the information from them, from all of them was a bit unclear. And it was just really unsettling to me that we had this in front of us and there wasn't a lot of answer our questions or I'm sorry, answers to our questions. So I like the the direction this is headed. I will say just kind of food for thought down the road is that if we do find that there is an issue with the process, that perhaps there needs to be an annual review when we have these contracts, you know, whether it's the three years or what have you , you know, it feels like there needs to be an additional layer every single year somehow, whether that's simultaneously with the city attorney's office and the city auditor's office. But it just seems like that would build a bit more trust on that end. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I want to echo the comments of Councilman Gonzalez and. I guess, additional months of transition. Is that supposed to be the fact that we were supposed to approve this four weeks ago and 140,000? The word transition in there at all seems surprising since it's the current contractor. Just a thought on another item on the agenda and how the word how it's worded, because you're you're transitioning from the same provider to the same provider. Just a thought. Councilwoman Price. I'm sorry. Q Okay, it's on there, but. Okay. Well, we have a motion in a second. Please go ahead and cast your votes. That's the friendly that's been accepted. Motion carries. Great motion. Curious. Thank you. We were moving on to the next item already.