Recommendation to Approve Staff’s Approach to Developing a City of Alameda Race and Equity Action Plan for the Organization, including Joining the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE). (City Manager 2110)
Recommendation to approve staff's approach to developing a city of Alameda Racial Equity Action Plan for the organization, including joining the Government Alliance on Race and Equity. Thank you. And Assistant City Manager Bowden. Are you presenting, aren't you? Yes. Yes, I am. This evening. Good evening. Hi. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft vice mayor knocks white members of the city council. I'm Jerry Bowden, assistant city manager. And we're either being joined or will be joined with, ah, by the director, Nancy Bronstein here, our senior analyst, Sabina Netto, and our acting police chief, Jeff Emmett. And I'll give a shout out to Amy Wooldridge, who's also been working with the director. Wooldridge has been working with Rec and Park Commission on this topic as well. So the team is starting to form around this. Obviously city manager and city attorney are with us as well. So it's an exciting new project where we're looking forward to getting going on on an action plan to address the resolution that declared racism a public health crisis in the city of Alameda. This was on July the 28th. And part of that resolution asked the as the city council asked staff to come back with an initial and ongoing action plan to address this topic, this crisis in our community. And so and with a real focus on the organization. So at this point, we have started to develop that comprehensive race and equity action plan for the city of Alameda. We've joined the Government Alliance on Race and Equity, and that's the organization known as GEAR. And we're exploring other options as well. And I'll touch on those just briefly this evening. But the the main focus of the presentation this evening is on is on gear. And gear does help government organizations across the country. They're the way that they put it. They develop a pathway for entry into racial equity work. And then they do offer the resources to help organizations, government organizations sustain it. So we believe that gear can be an effective partner for us as we develop our Race and Equity Action Plan. The purpose of the plan will be to foster a safe and inclusive workspace and workplace for our employees and to ensure that race and the race and equity lens is used to inform our policies and our programs. And I just want to acknowledge the link between the conversation we just had on the prior item and in the work that would go into our are our programs, policies and processes with the with a race and equity lens as we're doing this work. So our police department personnel would also be included in the gear training as part of the overall organizational effort. But due to the unique nature of their job, we also wanted to make sure that we infused the work plan with something that was a little more specific. The the hiring and partnering with a group called Fair and Impartial Policing is what we're suggesting. That group is different than gear. They provide implicit bias training and other training to police personnel. And the option that we're probably most interested in in terms of the fair and impartial policing work is how they deliver the training with police personnel and with community stakeholders involved simultaneously. So it's a way to bring police and the community together as part of an implicit bias training exercise. I'm aware of the national, local, regional conversations about implicit bias and and whether or not that's an effective tool or technique. But it is we are looking at a multifaceted approach, and we do think that this is a component that can be helpful as we as we move forward. And I'll talk a little bit about our community led process and how this might interface with that work as well. So the third component that we're so we've got gear, we've got fair and impartial policing. We also reached out to the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. They have an alternative to arrest pilot program that is being developed at this time. We don't have a lot of detailed information on the program right now, but we we do understand that the pilot program will be designed to provide law enforcement with the ability to link individuals in need to behavioral health services as an alternative to arrest. And so we're going to continue to explore that. And to a certain extent and maybe even more directly, this one ties into the fourth and final component that all discussed this evening. We have a community conversation happening right now. The steering committee that the city manager appointed is is off doing their work. Now, the five task force committees have been established. And so as the the the work of the community led process starts to be brought forward, we anticipate being able to merge that in with our organizational efforts and specifically with the the that the work that the police department, the opportunities that will be in front of the police department in the coming months. And so at this time, we're very roughly a. Estimating a budget of about $75,000 for this work, which we would incorporate into the October budget update. If there's council support for what we're suggesting this evening. And with that, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the proposed approach to developing a city of Alameda Race and Equity Action Plan for the organization. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bowden. Are there any. I'm. I'm going to assume that we have public comment on this item. Is that correct? Mr. RISINGER At this point, no one has raised their hand, so we do not. Well, but just go to your. That is. Now, somebody raised their hand. So we have one. That's okay. We're going to open this to clarifying questions from the council and vice mayor next. Blake. I just hand it first and then I see council member already. So in that order, please. Thank you very much. Assistant City Manager Bowden. My question is, it's pretty simple. It seems to me that what you're asking for is, are you asking for us to adopt or. To approach to to to approve the city joining Gary and also for the city to move forward with the filth and the the implicit bias training. Or are you asking for us to prove $75,000 in the general approach that you have outlined? And that's a very good question. You know, Carol. I'll I'll start to answer. And then others on the team can can join in the the the work program that is attached to the staff report associated with gear includes workshops. We would be picking from that menu of workshops in a logical order to deliver the content to the organization and then to get into our policies and procedures. There are also department specific efforts that were mentioned in the staff report I didn't spend a lot of time on. So it's the work program, it's the gear program, the fair and impartial policing, and then an estimated budget of $75,000 that we would return to you for formal action on the budget component with. But we didn't want to leave out the budget discussion this evening. Does that answer the question, Mayor? Yeah. I guess I'll just ask, because I thought you were going one way and then you went a different way. But it sounds like you are asking us to approve the specific work program with flexibility for which workshops, etc., and also the use of the RFP. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Correct. Councilmember Odie. Thank you. I mean, there were a couple emails from the public on this that kind of concern me on the fifth. I mean, I don't know if you had a chance to look at them, but, you know, there was some issues raised about, you know, interview that that one of the leaders had with an online magazine and talked about how this was used in Minneapolis, in New York. And there still hasn't been a change in behavior. And, you know, who's who does the training. So, I mean, I'm just wondering what you know, what would you say to people? About those concerns, especially when, you know, we've kind of given a community advisory committee this job and now we seem to be like picking their solution for them. Yeah. So so this is this is definitely I appreciate the question. I, I tried to infuse a little bit of that into the presentation this evening. I think that the conversation around implicit bias training gets mixed reviews. And there's no there's no question about that in terms of how the media and the the general public and the results, frankly, of fairness of of implicit bias training have have panned out in recent years. But what I would say to that is the there is an organizational approach to training our employees that we do fair, we do implicit bias training currently. And the question is, how do we want to deliver that training going forward? We're still at work. We're going to continue to deliver implicit bias training. I believe that that could change. And that, I think is the the community led component of the conversation. It could change. But in the meantime, we're trying to establish a work plan for our organization. And implicit bias training is is an important foundational piece from our perspective as we did the research on this topic and and the, the, the individual group that we've selected happens to bring in the community as part of that conversation. It's not just in a conference room training session. So there's an opportunity to build relationships between the police department and the community with the fair and impartial policing approach to implicit bias training. And so that's the reason that that particular group was put forward in this work program for the organization. Thank you, Mr. Burton. And I was going to ask if I could put any of our other staff on the spot who might want to comment. But is this is the program that has been used by any other cities in the Bay Area? Mr. Levitt. You? Yeah. The implicit, implicit bias training regarding the second group that Jerry Brown's talking about actually has been used extensively in Berkeley as my understanding, and has had a lot of success. And they have seen some change in Berkeley based on it. Obviously, we're talking about long term issues that have been going on in our society for a long time. So you aren't going to change it overnight. But they I've seen and heard favorable reviews in Berkeley and they still continue to use this program. It's not just a one time training. It's to try to create it as an integration into the organization overall. And actually, you can go beyond the police department if we find success in that program. Thank you. Anybody from H.R. want to comment? Not necessarily. Okay. Kills them every day. So, guys, see your hand up, please. Great. Well, thank you. So my understanding of what we're dealing with tonight is we wanna put together a race and equity action plan. And in putting that together, we're drawing on resources like something called gear and something called also fair and impartial policing. So they've got the background. They understand, you know, the types of questions that need to be considered. And they will help us staff and any other stakeholders involved in that process and putting together a fair and equity action plan, all of which will cost, we believe some are roughly around $75,000. So which is well and good. My concern I just want to make sure that we have an evaluation component within the within the plan that we come up with and that the resources we're drawing on for assistance, whether it's G&A or whether it's fair and impartial policing or, you know, maybe some knowledgeable community member, the resources that we draw on help us kind of identify how we might go about evaluating the Race and Equity Action Plan once it's designed and once it's implemented. And I think the evaluation component will be important because if we need to like change course somewhere in midstream, you know, we will have a basis for doing so. And the reason why I want to harp on, on, on kind of having some kind of thought through evaluation and evaluation process where we get the input from Gair or from, from fair and impartial policing or from the county DA's office. The reason why I think the evaluation part is important is because. You know, several years ago in the San Francisco Chronicle, there was a major newspaper article about this racial equity training for youth. And it was talking about, you know, how that this project, you know, it would bring in high school students from throughout the San Francisco Bay area to spend several days in the Santa Cruz Hills. And this and this was extensive right up in the San Francisco Chronicle front page. And and I have the link to it. But the punchline of that article, though, was that the trainers themselves might not live. And you know that the techniques that they used were kind of iffy. And so we want to make sure that obviously this is going to be done professionally, but it's also going to be sensitive to, you know, the different perspectives that I got being involved in the process. But for for I think for this to ultimately work, I think we need to be able to intentionally think through how we're going to evaluate and kind of track ourselves so that if we have to make any adjustments as we're implementing the Race and Equity Action Plan that we're getting, that that we have a shared basis for doing so. So that's why I will really stress having that. The process by which we're involving Gare or fair or impartial policing or the county DA's office, that they also help us think through how we're going to evaluate the race and equity plan that we ultimately design and implement. So that would be my $0.02 evaluation. I have been like 24/7. And I have. Councilmember Vela, did I see your handout? I was just going to ask if we're in council discussion or if it's just council questions right now. And if we had a public speaker. We're in free form. Well, the last I heard from the city clerk, we didn't have any public speakers because that status changed. Yes, we have two now. Oh, okay. So council, we can still entertain any clarifying questions about the staff report on that thing. And then let's hear from our public speakers and we'll come back to wrap up our discussion. Okay. Alexia Rocha. Good evening, Mr. Roger. Hi. Good evening, everybody. I am concerned to read about these recommendations specifically related to the fair and impartial policing trainings. First, I'm confused because the racism as a public health emergency didn't go through this summer as initiated, since folks felt the community hadn't been heard. Then the subcommittees were created so that the community could be heard. But then, here we are with proposed plans directly related to these subcommittees without their input beforehand. Second, this LLC, considered for the bias trainings, have been used in multiple cities where cops are still killing black and brown folks. Bias trainings have often backfired and instead had the opposite effect reinforcing biases which has been studied and is easily Google evil. I'm very curious who the city manager has been hearing reports from as to their success in Berkeley, because I imagine if you asked folks of color, they wouldn't agree. This all goes towards reform. And as we have seen over the many, many years that policing has been problematic. Reforms do not work. They maintain the status quo and perpetuate the inequitable treatment between people of color and white people. Not to mention, these trainings are incredibly expensive. Instead, I believe we should be looking at how we can reroute these funds for people so that services are actually without the funds from police, so that services are actually working for the people and not against them. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker. Rasheed Shabazz. Hello, Mr. Shabazz. Peace be with you. I'm there. With you. Hey. Hey. I wanted to just comment as far as the overall racial equity plan and then suggest another organization that may help with some of the evaluations specific for the police department. So first, I think in another correspondence I suggested the Government Alliance for Racial Equity. And I think, you know, they do a lot of great work. And I think for some aspects of them, some of the larger frameworks that may be helpful for some of the things internal to city government specifically related to FEP, I don't know if people call it that. I think just with the concerns that people raised about the independent investigation into the incident with the party room, Ollie Watkins, and the concern around the law enforcement sort of entanglement, I use that phrase with that organization and it being confidential. I think the similar concerns are going to come up with another organization that takes a research approach is the Center for Policing Equity. And what they focus on is more about data. And so I think that because I don't know to what extent the issue has been studied in Alameda, analyzing the data by race, by gender, by location. Without that, I don't know if just doing more training or not having evaluated past training will let folks know if there's a problem, the extent of the problem, etc.. So I would suggest an academic organization like CP in the Center for Policing Equity at UCLA, and I think there's a couple of other ones and other institutions that can provide that level of data analysis that can help inform the community process and also what your oversight is as a city council. Thank you, Mr. Chavez. Are there further public comments? We have one more chair. Johansson. Mr. Johansson. 15 view. I'm sorry. There you go. I'm doing that. There you go. I'm a little concerned. That this is kind of cutting off the community input that we have, the community committees that we're formed to kind of give us guidance on this question. And I'm sort. Of afraid that. If we do this tonight, then you're kind of tied their hands. So I think maybe we. Should listen to the community first before we go ahead with some of us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johansen. Any more public speakers, Madam Clerk? That was our last speaker. Okay, then I'm going to close public comment at this point, and I'm actually going to ask staff to comment on some of the things that we have heard. First of all, Mr. Bowden or whoever Mr. Leavitt, whoever wants to take this, is this proposal, does it somehow hamper or preclude the public process that has started what appears to be a very robust process? Yeah. And I, I can I could start and I could I would one alternative I would recommend in addressing some of these comments is the committees are looking and working toward trying to bring a interim report back to the city council in December. At this point, it took a little while to get them together. So they're trying to bring some report, an interim report in December. So one option would be to maybe get is a little bit separate is separate from the policing committees. And so I would one alternative would be to go forward with care and we could take and maybe go forward and continue to research the district attorney's program that they're instituting. And then we could take the other part that people have more concerns about, and we could actually move that out to December, because I think between now and December probably is not a lengthy time. We're talking about something that we're trying to create a change in dynamics going forward for for a for the organization as a whole. So waiting until December for that, for the fair and implicit bias could be something that we wait till December and have those committees review it. That would be an alternative to this. Thank you. And I will just share that. I had a conversation with the district attorney, Nancy O'Malley, in the last month, and she did mention this pilot program that the county and her office had started, which would be to it actually has a lot of resemblance to the code program that you probably all hear. Tired of hearing me raise. But it does have a lot of merits. And 31 years old now. So anyway, I said, oh, please talk to our city manager, because I would be very interested in in having Almeida participate in something like that. So I think both the city manager, maybe the city attorney have had some conversations with her. And so thank you for that input. Mr. LEVITT. Councilmember Vale, I throw your hands up. Yeah, I, I'm a few things I'm supportive of generally the air program. I have a lot of reservations about implicit bias. There was actually an article in NPR about the NYPD study on implicit bias training and changing minds. And ultimately the conclusion was that it doesn't necessarily change behavior. And as a lot of law enforcement departments are looking at either changes in policy or potential reform, one of the most common responses has been to basically have folks take implicit bias training. And, you know, some of the original people behind developing implicit bias training, including some of the professors from Harvard, have said that ultimately they have a few concerns. One is that they worry about the quality of the implicit bias training for police and that there are a lot of concepts that are out there by different folks, but they're not necessarily all the same. And there's a certain degree of expertize that's needed. The other comments that that I thought were relevant and important was that, you know, the training itself, this was another psychology professor was that the training itself probably doesn't hurt, but there's an opportunity cost to consider that, especially in an effort to fix implicit. If the effort is to fix implicit bias in officers, it really often displaces other kinds of training that could be more effective and also can give cities an excuse to ignore factors that are external to policing but probably have a greater impact in the overall results. And so, you know, the suggestion has basically been that really this is not necessarily about looking at certain types of implicit bias training, but really that we find levels of intervention relative to overall office culture, which is, I think, what Gary is more geared at just, just in general, and that we are also looking at understanding the reasons for certain communities to have more encounters that are negative or with police, such as poverty or housing policies, that that end up concentrating particular ethnic groups into areas that then become designated as crime prone. And I think we've heard a lot of comments not just at this council meeting in our public comments, but in other council meetings of kind of the bias that exists in our community. And there's also kind of a widespread focus now nationally also on looking at kind of understanding, you know, different policies that we have in place, whether they're housing policies or different laws that we've enacted, that that cause people to really focus on trying to criminalize survival. And so, you know, I think I guess my concern is twofold. One, that I want to give room for this community process. So I would appreciate kind of holding back on the Fed and letting that process take place. But I do think that there's value in Gary specifically because it's more, as I stated, geared at that overall cultural approach within within the city or the organization and kind of addressing that and helping us focus on a process to really address those things. If we do partner with the city attorney's office or that's something that's on the table, I will have to abstain from that. My my employer represents the rank and file district attorneys at Alameda County, so I will not be be commenting or voting on that. But I just wanted to put that out there. And I, as somebody who has represented does represent people that are in law enforcement, I think that there's a lot of good intent behind things like the CIP, but I think that they ultimately take away from from broader goals and detract from the larger conversation, which is maybe where we want to spend the bulk of our time. So, you know, I do appreciate staff trying to move forward on this. And I think that there's a lot of misinformation out there that that the city is kind of dragging its heels and not trying to respond. And so I really appreciate this being on the agenda and that this is continuing to come back. To us. I think you heard from us that we wanted to see action. And so I think that's why there in particular is coming back to us. So I want to acknowledge that that that isn't just staff motivated. That was really coming from council in our conversations this summer, but that I think that there is room for kind of the specifics of that to be worked out through the community led process. And I think what would be helpful is also if the community if we could get some feedback on the community led process, like what sort of public meetings they might be having or opportunities for members of the public to to comment and be involved in that. I think I know that that's happening. I just don't want it to seem like the city is hiding that. Thank you. Councilmember Vela, Councilmember ODA, you're next. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm pretty much going to agree with everything my colleague just said, except I will comment on the 3D alternative a little bit. So I'm fine with the. With the gear because I think that was something we specifically called out when we were still deciding what we're going to do with that emergency health declaration that we even passed that on the first day. And, you know, I've personally heard instances of of of racism directed at our members of staff, and that's concerning. So I think the sooner we can work on that internally, the better. I mean, we just went through this process to kind of center our communities of color on the solution and then to bring forward a suggestion for the DA's office and to bring out a suggestion from this fit, which is basically funded by DOJ grants. I mean, it's kind of, in my opinion, centering institutional law enforcement. And I mean, if I mean, I'm not in the community of color, but I would kind of take that as a slap in the face because that's kind of what I'm hearing we're not supposed to do. So I would like to see this committee who we trusted with this, you know, and again, whether it's, you know, this three D program or cahoots or expanding community, parent medicine or whatever the solution is going to be understanding that, you know, that solution or recommendations were going to come back from the task force as opposed to the council kind of picking and choosing winners and losers. So, you know, I prefer that that that part of this agenda item, it will kind of be be evaluated by the committee because the Center for Policing Equity, I mean, that that's something I don't know if we've looked at. But, you know, just looking at the website, you know, seems like something I'd be more inclined to to hear more about than this other stuff which some members of the community have raised concerns about. So I think we should take those seriously. Thank you. Councilmember Oti, Councilmember de SAC. Well, great. Let me add to this conversation. Let me add this. I do think that because in Alameda specifically or across the country generally, the police force are especially implicated and the discussion about race and equity and how we treat one another. I believe that the process that would lead to the race inequity action plan that we're talking about tonight must involve the lens, the perspective of an organization such as fair and impartial policing. It doesn't have to be fair, impartial policing, but it has to be. I think the perspective of the police needs to be included in this process. And I say that especially because when it comes to race and equity type of issues that are related to police, I think there's something very special about the interaction between the possible interaction between police and and and persons of color and that and that quote unquote, something special has to do with, you know, issues of potential violence and harm. And so I think we definitely need an organization who understands the policing perspectives and the procedures and the policies, as well as an organization perhaps like Aguerre, who also understands, you know, the broader questions regarding race and culture and equity. So I think it would it would weaken the race and equity action plan that we're trying to put together if we do not include an organization that intentionally includes a perspective of of the police industry. Again, it doesn't have to be fair and impartial police and maybe it's someone else. But but but whomever I think that has to be involved because I don't know, for example, if government alliance on race inequity, if they have the subject matter expertize to be able to translate, you know, the questions, the questions and answers that they have with regard to matters of race and equity, if they can translate that into specific policies and procedures. Regarding the police force, I don't know if they have that subject matter expertize. So I do think you need someone like a FIP. It doesn't have to be them, but but it has to be someone with kind of a policing background. So so I will disagree with the city manager's suggestion that we hold off on including the FIP and move forward with the with Aguiar. I think we, I think we we we ought to move forward. And if we're going to hold off on the FIP, we ought to hold off only because we're in search of someone like FIP. I don't know if it's if it's the UCLA outfit that was referenced earlier today, but the fact that is associated with UCLA, I mean, does in my from my perspective, give it some semblance of credibility, particularly from an academic perspective, as well as from from policy and practice perspective. It doesn't again, it doesn't have to be that that that organization from UCLA. But but but I do believe it has to be someone who is intimately familiar with them with the practices and procedures of of policing and and how we can improve that through the Race Equity Action Plan. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember de so face paradox. I have to say, when Councilmember de SAC was saying about to say what his perception of UCLA was, I was really expecting this cal side to come out. So I held back. I think it's part of the system and I think you might have a familial relationship to that. So I just I said it. There's a lot that Johnny is and I was praising the UCLA system in this case. So I want to I want to step back and a couple of things. I have had the opportunity over the last few weeks to meet with our interim police chief and our in our captains to talk about some issues. And I have really appreciated the openness, the transparency and the commitment to conversation that that that I have that I have witnessed. And and I do feel that there is I say this talk for for the communities who is listening, a real commitment to openly talking about these issues in a way that that I have not seen up until this point. And so I just wanted to really acknowledge, you know, and appreciate the FIP process and the real attempt to. Be proactive. You know, I don't feel that I am the right person to decide whether PHP is the right process, whether implicit bias is the right process. But I do. And for me, I am interested in willing to approve the financed financial side of this on the FP issue. You know, my, my recommendation would be that if staff feels this is the first thing that should be done, that there should be some conversation with the appropriate subcommittee and steering committee, and then we should come back and hear what their feedback was so that I don't feel comfortable approving this program tonight. But I know that a lot of thought has gone into it, and I have read the studies to say implicit bias training is not useful. And I also know that, you know, the city of San Francisco who has gone, you know, you know, three young gun really strongly into this issue offers it. And it is a training that is that is encouraged for all employees. So, you know, I'm not going to micromanage with the rate with the right solution, is there? But I would like to make sure that we we hear a little bit more in this conversation. We've had lots of conversations about racism and what it is. And, you know, I think that there's still a lot of room for all of us to have conversations about how we can call out racist actions without accusing somebody of being an immoral, racist person. And I think well, Councilmember De Saag said that, you know, policing is kind of right there in the center in Alameda of kind of racial inequity and whatnot. And then maybe paraphrasing a little, you know, I don't mean on not not be correct, but quite honestly I think, you know, we just in case our police staff and enforcement effort here and we're having the same conversation about land use right now. We're having the same conversation about parks. I don't want to single out the police. There is a reason why they have been the focal point in part of it is because of what happened in Minneapolis. But part of it is what happened after Minneapolis with George Floyd and the conversations that we had. I, I do find myself wondering if there are some conversations before we start with implicit bias training that might need to happen to make sure that everybody is on the same page about how we're doing this and why we're doing this. But, you know, anger might be a place that can help the city. San Francisco has been a member of Dare. I have not personally gone through any of their programs, but I work with multiple people who have gone through their trainings. But the city has made a strong commitment to just putting cohort after cohort after cohort of people through their training. And that's that's I think what we need to understand is that this is not a one time cost for us. This is a commitment that we're making and that we're making for years and that a year from now, it is really going to be hard for us to out to do the important evaluation that Councilmember de SAC says it reminded us is important earlier today. So, you know, I strongly encourage us and have strongly encouraged us in the past to to join there and to get that underway. I would be happy to support the $75,000 with direction that staff come back when they have kind of something that they want to. I appreciate that. The I don't think Gare and RFP interlink. They are two separate things, but I appreciate that there's some interested in looking at how do we kick off some conversations here in the police department based on community feedback that we have received? I'd like that. I'd like both the police department and our community groups, too, to provide that feedback. Anyway, I yeah. I want to correct a couple of things that I heard tonight. We're two months in, and we have yet to have one single public meeting of these steering committee. In fact, a steering committee themselves have yet to meet. So we we don't have work plans. You know, I you know, in July, the council said, well, if we don't feel that they've you know, we've heard from them, we don't have information, we will we'll change course. I'm not expecting to change course. But I want to be careful that we are suggesting that there is a robust public process that is has happened because there has been zero public process. In fact, I can't even get the names of the people who are on the subcommittees at this point in time. And anyway, I just I want to be careful that, yes, we have a public we have public groups that are doing work. But until they start actually engaging the public, you know, we don't know what's happening. And that does concern me a little bit. I was one who said, hey, let's start talking about the city, how the city can start engaging on this. So I'm really appreciative of the the city manager, even though the council didn't actually support moving forward on this quickly. I saw the importance of this and brought it forward. And, you know, I think our city is is moving in the right direction. But I think we have some big questions and our timelines are starting to slip. And I don't know how to address that, but I think it's a conversation we should probably bring back some time so that we can, because now we're hearing our first report back from these committees will be in December when we were in July, going to be hearing back at least initial information in September. But I look forward to supporting this tonight with the caveat about the fifth and community input. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I don't think it's my imagination. Didn't we receive the spreadsheet of all the committee members broken down by the committee? The city manager sent them to us. And I don't think you were excluded just last week, I believe, Mr. Levitt. I did, but I will send. I sent it out. Yeah, yeah. Thanks. I even just. I just looked for it, so I must have deleted it. Thank you. We get a lot of emails. I'll be the first to say if I haven't replied yours, please forgive me. So I think we've heard from everyone. So let me just chime in. Good. And I'll give you another chance if you want to. But thank you. Good. Good comments. I really appreciate Assistant City Manager Bowden putting this report together, doing a really deep dove. I know the city manager and I and I guess I've heard from business city manager Bowden mentioned a couple of times what good results Berkeley has had with gear. It's good to hear about San Francisco as well because I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. And you know, when it comes to the Bay Area, Bay Area cities have certain issues in common and certain similar sensibilities. And so I think the recommendations are good about moving forward with the gear. I would concur with the city manager's recommendation that the fifth portion could wait until we've heard from from our subcommittees their input. And I want to address something Councilmember Otis said, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I signed up for being in this Diaz pilot, but I don't even know when it started. It was unclear whether it was even going to start. But sometimes if you don't get at least your foot in the door, then the opportunity, you know, closes. And so I chose the day this in Alameda resident but I'm really proud of this this work that we're undertaking. And yeah, it's taking time but there's the member is the steering committee and the whole big group they have on that and they have divided themselves into the relevant subcommittees. And I think we had about 200 expressions of interest from the community, which I consider a success right there, that there's so much interest in this, in this topic. And I was really pleased to see a wide range of folks who who are participating. But I yes, I very much favor approving the $75,000 expenditure moving forward as the city manager recommend. And I'm happy to if someone wants to make the motion, I think. Councilmember Kelly, did you want to say one more thing? I thought that had a good. Yeah, just that the update was sent out on September 7th and that the committee met on the eighth and the subcommittee members are all listed on the City of Oneida website. If you go to our website, it's, it's there under the policing review and racial equity. If you go to home residents policing review and racial equity, it also has the presentation in the agenda from the meetings with the the Police Reform Citizen's Committee's kick off convening from September 8th. And then all the names of the participants are as well as the selection committee are all there as well as their background. So I just wanted to put that out there, but I do want to recognize again the digital divide and the fact that just because it's on our website doesn't mean that people necessarily know about it. And so I do think perhaps in the city manager updates, if we can, at our council meetings, if we could just hear in advance if there are meetings, that sort of thing, I think members of the public would appreciate it. That's a good point, Councilmember Vela. And I think this weekend is when I do mine. I write my next article as you monthly articles, not for the newspapers. I'll try to be sure to include that one in there. Something about that as well. So with that, do we have a motion for moving forward? Councilmember Brody, you're leaning forward. 10 minutes. And that's to make a motion or. Oh, I got to look up. I got to open my eyes. The vice mayor's got is that. I move that we approve the city joining together and moving forward in developing a work plan and the and approved $75,000 for this effort including an effort to start engaging with our police force in concert in consultation with our both our police department and community enforcement subcommittees. Okay. We've had a motion I'll. Second that. We have a statement by Councilmember Vela. Any further discussion? Councilmember So would that mean that before whatever program or contractor or whatever we hired, it would come back to us? So or. You know how much they plan on that and what we would weigh. Yeah, we would. Have it. Outside of Gaza. We would wait on the on the other the fit, as people have called it. And we would wait on that until the police subcommittee reports come back. Or that's not my mom. Prioritize this or something. You're welcome. Mr.. Mr.. KNOX Wait. Just let Mr. Oteh finish his comments and then I will call on you. Counselor, O.D. You were say. I don't know. I kind of lost my train of thought because I was interrupted by Jim. It's okay. We're going to take a break after this, guys. So that's when I get a break. We've got more than that. So I guess I just want to make sure that, you know, the staff doesn't go off and pick somebody, you know, without somebody taking a second pair of eyes. On what the committee recommended. So we can make sure that, you know, whatever happens is aligned with with what the committee recommends. Not that I don't trust you here, but this is a very sensitive issue. And I think we need to work quickly, but also work smartly. And you want that community input is what I'm hearing. Right. And I'm going to make sure that, you know, we validate that it's been followed. Okay. Back to you, vice mayor. All right. So the motion was to actually allow the staff to have the flexibility to hire at the the appropriate consultant in consultation with the committees. I wasn't. We can ask we can add to it if you want, that it has to come back for council approval. That starts to feel like we're getting into administrative stuff, but maybe we can bring it back as an informative. My guess is the committees will let us know if something is moving forward that is not consistent with the recommendations. Okay. I understood that. Rody, does that satisfy your concerns? And may it be good to just add that to the motion. You know, I thought we were welcoming feedback from, you know, our bipoc communities on these things. So I think that's what the vice mayor is saying, are you not? That was that was in the motion. That was specifically what's not in the motion is that it's going to come back for council approval can. But the vice mayor is proposing this consultation with the subcommittees. Which are largely made up of our bipoc community. I'd like to say I still would like to review it and make sure that. Whoever is selected. I just want to have one more evaluation from the council before it selected. I mean, what if what if the staff refused declines the recommendation of of the committee. I mean, that's possible. Or the committee makes multiple recommendations. Oh, I don't know. Council members What do we think? Council Member Fellow. $75,000 is not not a lot of money. And so my assumption would be that if there's multiple suggestions that we go with multiple things, that that will come back to us. I also think that what we heard was that there's going to be a report back from the committee in December. And so I would expect as part of that report back from the committees, that they address the usage of the $75,000, as well as what their recommendation was to this. So I and I heard from the city manager that he plans to come back. I just don't want to hold this up as a matter of official council approval. But I think we've made it very clear that it needs to be in consultation with these committees. And I think that there are some very vocal members of our community who know how to get in touch with us, if in that who are involved. And specifically on the anti-racism process of this, I feel very comfortable with the folks that are involved. Okay. So and I would say my concern. All right. Well, and I think your concern will be addressed, but I appreciate you raising that. Thank you. So we've had a motion by Vice Mayor Knox White, seconded. By Councilmember Vela. That's her. Yes. Thank you. I'm glad someone's keeping track. Any further discussions thing, then? Maybe we have a roll call vote with. Councilmember De said. It's not quite. I. Odie. I vla. I. Mayor as the Ashcroft. I. Like carries by five I. Thank you, everyone. A very good discussion. Thank you. Members of staff in chief Emmett Bronstein, the netto, our assistant city manager. City manager, thank you very much. I'm granting a ten minute break for us. We will be back at 945, be at 945. So you might want to turn your cameras and your audio. Councilor Odie council member. That I thought. Oh, someone need to shave. Oh, I wasn't going to mention that to. Okay. There she is. Hey. So, Laura, are you ready for us? Yes, we are ready. All right. And let's go live. Eight. So item six is introduction of ordinance amending the army to missile code by adding a new article. Okay, that one is 19/3 party food and how that's not 19 touch. Wait a. All right. I used Roman numerals there. You're killing me right now. That's ten. But then it be v i v and it is. That's weird. I think there's a problem with that rating. I got to double check that. Anyway, to an article at third party food delivery of Chapter six Business 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. Is it? 29? Is that what that is? I don't know because I thought that was I x 29 was i x? That's what I tried. Oh, I didn't know. Probably some third grader will email us. But so is this. And this potter's. Good evening, Council members. Mayor, I have a very short introduction and the pleasure of turning the presentation over to Amanda Gursky, who is going to be giving the staff report. And with that, Amanda, myself and Lois will be available to answer any questions. Hi. So there's this butler. Okay. All right. You welcome this jerky. Take it away. Thank you. So good evening. My name's Amanda Garki. I'm with the Community Development Department. I'm just going to give a short presentation on the ordinance we're proposing tonight that would limit the fees charged to Alameda Restaurants by third party delivery companies. So by way of background, I know folks are aware of how hard hit the restaurant industry has been by COVID 19. Like many businesses, restaurants were forced to close in March, and many have turned to takeout and delivery as their main source of income. Next slide, please. So after the initial shelter in place, orders took hold. Third party delivery services like GrubHub, Postmates, DoorDash, they were. They actually played a really important role in helping our restaurants to come up to scale, to respond to demand and kind of the new COVID reality that many of the restaurants were facing. So they provide a variety of services. In addition to coordinating deliveries, they also help to market restaurants, bring their menus online, provide customer assistance and help with point of sale technologies among other among other services. They also pay credit card processing fees and for liability insurance and PPE for delivery drivers. So, you know, these services really offer a lot, but they also, at the same time charge a lot of the fees that these companies charge restaurants for. Services vary based on individual service packages, but they range from 20 to 30% of purchase price. And in addition to charging restaurants, they also charge fees to customers. One 2019 article found that customer fees ranged from 12 to 30% of purchase price. Next slide, please. So in preparing for this ordinance, we reached out to Alameda Restaurants and we heard from many of them that delivery and takeout are their primary sources of income at this time. These restaurants are already operating on pretty slim margins of the 20 to 30%. Fees represent a real hardship for them. We heard from restaurant owners who are not taking salaries, who are dipping into their personal savings to keep their businesses running, and who are relying on PPE loans, which are quickly running out. I spoke to one restaurant owner who has a very successful restaurant, been working seven days a week, and he thinks that if things don't change, he might have to start thinking about closing in December. And that was kind of a thread that we heard throughout this process. We also recently conducted a focus group of restaurants and retailers, and we heard that folks are predicting a wave of closures over the winter if conditions don't change. Next slide, please. So the proposed ordinance would limit fees on restaurants to 15% of purchase price. This number is consistent with ordinances that have been enacted by other Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, San Leandro, Livermore, Fremont and a number of other cities across the country. We're recommending that the ordinance be temporary so that it would end when the state of emergency is lifted or whenever indoor dining can resume at 100%, whichever happens later. We're proposing a wide variety of enforcement options, including civil, criminal and administrative. And there's also a few other elements that are included in the proposed ordinance not allowing customer or not allowing the services to increase menu prices unless that was initiated by the restaurants, not allowing them to garnish or retain any portion of the driver tip and not allowing them to charge for telephone orders that don't result in a transaction. So in preparing for this ordinance, we also reached out to the third party delivery companies to get their feedback on this. And we heard from them that there may be some impact on the services they can provide if we implement and or limits . They talked about reduced marketing for restaurants will be reduced delivery radii and also the potential to increase fees for customers. They said that higher fees to customers may result in fewer orders for restaurants through their company. So we we did run those potential impacts by some of the restaurants, and we heard some folks who had concerns about them. We heard other restaurants who weren't terribly concerned about it. One point I wanted to note that came up a few times was that some restaurants felt that if there were that it actually might be a good thing if fewer orders were going through the third party delivery companies, because it might lead to more direct takeout orders , which is actually more profitable and preferred by many of the restaurants. Next slide, please. So in terms of alternatives, know one possible one would be to do something slightly higher than 15%. And the city of Oakland, they did a 15% fee limit for restaurants, but then also allowed the services to pass on their credit card processing fees . Notes average about 2 to 3%. So it's kind of having a few limits up more around the 17, 18% point that just gives the companies a little more breathing room. In a similar vein, Berkeley and Los Angeles and New York and a few other cities have done a 15% plus five model. So that's 15% for delivery fees plus five for service fees. That comes out to about 20%. Council also has the option of, in addition to limiting the restaurant fee to 15% or some other amount of freezing customer fees at the current rate. So this option is recommended by our city attorney's office as a way to ensure that the costs aren't passed on to customers. And the research we did for this, we weren't able to find any other cities that have yet have passed a freeze on customer fees. So to my knowledge, at this point, we would be the first and I will say that we heard from delivery companies that if we freeze customer fees, that they may consider legal action against us or pull out of Alameda altogether. And then, of course, there's always no action. So that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you. And so you weren't able to find any cities that have capped the amount of fees charged customers that the city of Santa monica. Or were you looking at Bay Area cities? I, i we looked throughout the country, but we weren't able to look at all of them. I did not look at the city of Santa monica. So it's possible that that but that that they have done that. Okay. Um. Our city attorney has the connections in Santa monica. This is a very interesting, interesting item and timely because. Restaurants have been, as you noted, very hard hit. And then sometimes it seems like they just can't catch a break because just as our city council approved an and I want to really compliment the economic development department headed by Ms.. Butler, Mr. King, Ms.. Potter and air quality works with you. They've really reached out and worked closely with our business community, and just every week I could make the town call today, but every week there's a business townhall Tuesdays at 2 p.m. and really helping guide our businesses through some really difficult times. And then just as the public health department said, our COVID numbers are leveling off. So you can open for outdoor dining. And we set up these nice expanded spaces and our downtowns are closing off side streets. Then we get this horrendous air quality. Not today, but that kept a lot of people from going out and eating out. And then winter is coming. I know that the Game of Thrones, but that, you know, pretty soon we might have rain. I mean, I wish we'd get it tomorrow without lightning or wind, of course, but but that that's going to hamper some of the outdoor dining. So I think this is very timely will entertain any clarifying questions about the staff report. But I want to just check with the city clerk. Do we have public speakers on the side of that? We do not have any public speakers. All right. You'll let us know if we do. And so clarify, well, clarifying questions, whether kind of questions, because apparently we don't have public speakers. Councilmember Desai. Clarifying question. So in with regard to the city attorney's recommendation of also freezing on the consumer side, how pervasive was the response by potentially affected businesses when who said they might pull out? I meant, was that just one person saying that? Was that a across the board? How pervasive was that? And when we say businesses, you're talking about the Uber, the Lyft. Exactly who might pull out of because, you know, they don't want to they don't want to have their the consumer side frozen. Okay. We did hear from I think. I think. Three of the four we spoke to said that they would have major concerns about it. One, it hadn't come up at the time that we talked to them. Okay. Thank you. As a clarifying question. No. Shaking your head. No. Okay. Something that I cannot remember where I heard this or read this. But the state not that I want to see Uber and Lyft go out of business, because there are other things that I try to keep in mind is that, you know, nothing is so simple as this is. Right, this is wrong. Because obviously people drive for these companies, Uber and Lyft, because they're trying to make ends meet. It's a way that gives them the flexibility. Sometimes in a household with two parents, kids, this. Is a way. That they can do that. You know, tag team parenting that is familiar to many of us who've done it and, you know, cover someone's home with the kids. Most of us aren't making the money. And so I don't want to I don't want to disparage that aspect of it. What I haven't been able to find out and you might know better, how are these drivers compensated? Is that what's the model? If if you know. So it it varies. They each seem to have their own method and they are rather complicated. They they use it. I'm thinking of one we spoke to that use an algorithm that included everything from the size of the order, the distance they had to drive, the time of day and demand that was happening. And then they and I know that they usually will have a minimum amount that they pay and then it kind of goes up from there. And then a lot of them also use bonus systems where they'll you know, if you fulfill a certain number of orders in a day, they'll give you a $500 bonus or something of that. And I know Councilmember Bella has some professional experience that might be what you're going to comment on. Um, Councilmember, then I think I see the vice mayor stand up maybe. Okay. Yeah. I was just going to say, you know, in addition to the the chamber, the business roundtables that happen on Tuesdays, there's also a subcommittee of the restaurants that meet weekly as well. I happened to sit in to the the meeting with DoorDash and one of the more appalling things that was said, or I thought at least just the tone deafness of it, was that, you know, not all businesses are doing well right now. And that was said to our small business restaurant owners. And what we know is, is that some of these companies have billion dollar valuations. And to the mayor's question, how are the the drivers compensated? They're not compensated as employees. They don't get sick days. They don't have paid sick leave. They don't have worker's compensation. They don't have Social Security. So, you know, I think my concern is in seeing the price gouging. And that's really what this is and what this is about of our small businesses. And Madam Mayor, I think we were on a town hall together where one of our small business owners, a restaurant owner, came forward with a bill where like 40% was taken out. So he did like $1,000 in business and pocketed just under 600. That that really concerns me because what it means is that these large companies are taking money from our community. They're taking opportunity from our community. And they're not necessarily helping the individuals who are actually doing the hard labor of bringing and providing the service of bringing food from the restaurants to the customers. So I also think it was really interesting hearing from our small businesses relative to this conversation is where the deliveries are going. And Alameda is not geographically, we're not we're not geographically spread out. And a lot of the business is staying in our city and not going far out. So even for the deliveries that are going outside of Alameda, they're going to Oakland or San Leandro, not not tremendous distances away. So I think for many reasons, it makes sense for us to cap these fees. I'm really glad that we had both. I think Lois was on the call with the restaurants as well as Amanda. And I think as a council, we've taken a lot of steps to help our small businesses. And this is just another one of those steps that will really make a difference. And it's something that we can do that they've been asking for. I am interested to hear from our city attorney about what the city of Santa monica has done or may be doing relative to the consumer side of things. I do think that that's a concern. I don't know how many other cities are tracking this. I know that other cities like San Francisco and San Leandro have capped the delivery fees. But if we can hear from the city attorney a little bit about where his concern for that aspect comes from in terms of the potential for the money to get shifted on to the consumer. Could could you speak to that city attorney? Mr. Shin. Ah, you muted. There we go. I'm happy to share some thoughts. I believe that there is the one city out there that's actively considering limiting consumer charges in Chicago. I know that Monica has consistently looked at consumer charges as an issue, hasn't taken any final action. And my concern has to do with the fact that essentially these third party, these online apps, essentially delivery apps, takes in revenue from two sources, the restaurants that they charge and the customers that pay for the food. And so if we adopt an ordinance that only limits the charge in one place and does not limit the charge in the second place, Alameda residents could face consequences such as increased charges because it is likely that these apps will make themselves whole in some other way by increasing charges to our residents. And as a matter of example, I believe Uber Eats is the one example where they have increased charges to residents after a jurisdiction recall exactly which jurisdictions capped delivery charges. And the result is that the residents of the community ultimately suffer these price gouging. And it is for that and other reasons we shared with you in our confidential memo that we are recommending that not only the Council consider capping charges to restaurants, but also freeze and place the delivery fees that they're charging to customers. As of the publication of the staff report, which is September 3rd. Not your muted. I know. I just realized that the vice mayor had his hand up anyway to call on him before we go back to people who have spoken with the mayor. But I did want to. Councilmember Vela is a little humble after that meeting two and a half weeks ago that she she mentioned she was at she reached out and said, hey, do you want to bring a council referral on this item? And knowing that there had been some conversations about this, I just wanted to give my great appreciation. We reached out to Eric and the city manager and staff to ask if we could, instead of doing a council referral and delaying this for another month, could, if they could bring this as a part of what was originally going to be a COVID response, economic development response. And I know that there was a little bit of a last minute scramble to do that. But they heard our businesses, they heard they got the letter from Dabbagh earlier this summer. So I just want to get my great appreciation for that really impressive amount of work that went into this, the thoughtfulness and whatnot. I will echo the comments of Councilmember Vella. You know, these app based services are basically just shifting revenues and income from people who are doing really hard work to people who run apps. They're there. They're, you know, Prop 22 is on the ballot right now to make sure that they don't have to pay people and give them benefits, people who are working really hard. And so, quite honestly, while I believe they are providing some service mean we've had delivery restaurant delivery for for many, many years. And I'm confident that that will continue to happen. Whether or not it's through businesses that have been found guilty of wage theft, through stealing tips and everything else, through their through their services. We have heard all summer from our from our restaurants how important this is. I don't think that this is going to be an overly controversial thing. To me, I am less I will support the will of the majority as long as we cap cap the fees to restaurants and at least adopt the the within the staff report. You know, I do think at the end of the day, it's going to be the drivers who suffer if we cap their ability to charge fees for people to pick up food. And at the end of the day, if we're asking people to drive food around, you know, we should be paying for that. It generates a lot of traffic. The impact of these services is huge when when we're not in COVID times for the congestion and whatnot. And that would be to me, it's a trade off. But, you know, I would be willing to move forward without capping the the customer that the direct to customer fee as long as it is clear upfront what that fee is. So people know what they're paying. And it's not like using a credit card in a Oakland taxicab where all of a sudden you get a strange $7 add on for you and you get your bill. So I'm looking forward to this. I just wanted to say thank you to the staff for bringing this forward, because I know that it was a quick last minute sprint. Thank you both, Mayor Councilmember Odie. Thank you. Just a quick question and thanks to the staff, I know economic development is overwhelmed and they're working triple time to try to support our businesses. So I appreciate that. So when you go in there and you can give a tip that goes to the driver. Right. That's not hijacked by anybody. Right. That's right. There were apparently situations in the past where some of these companies were garnishing tips from drivers. I think that's a practice that most of them have stopped. But we wanted to include it in the ordinance that they couldn't, you know, just to have that in writing that they couldn't do it. Okay. Thank you. Well, a lot of what's happened, I would say, has been said. So I'm not going to repeat it. I would I would prefer option three where we can freeze it on the customers as well. Because I, I do think that these, these businesses will try to just cost shift. And I mean, in my discussions with small business owners, especially restaurants, they're concerned about this. So I'm glad that you guys were all able to put this together and not wait for referral, which was on my list to do also, but just never got done. So I really don't buy the fact that, you know, if we do this, they're going to get out of out of our city, even if one does or two does. I mean, the demand is there and the simple of supply and demand is that there's demand. Then people are going to try to find a way to meet it. And, you know, 85 was a big controversial thing. And I'm glad that we've taken some steps to give these workers some financial security and benefits. So. I just. I think somebody is going to step in and fill the need as long as it's unmet. So you saw where Uber and Lyft threatened over Ab5 to pull out of California, the largest state in the country. And then ultimately they. Fell through on those threats because they know this is a large market and they know that probably most of their profits come out of California. So I'm not I'm not I don't feel threatened by that. But I'd like to see number three because I don't want to see, you know, all of a sudden, you know, instead of 40% of the restaurants as 40% of the consumer. And this is only a temporary emergency ordinance. So I think everyone needs to behave. And if they're not behaving, then we need to create some emergency legislation to force them to behave. Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Councilmember Daisuke. Oh yeah. I think we in Alameda have a rare opportunity to be leaders in terms of setting a freeze, both for a freeze on restaurants as well as freeze on customers. So I certainly appreciate it. I certainly approve both. And I'll just. I'm sorry. Did you finish, Kelso? Yeah. So I'm going to chime in and say, I mean, I look at this list of other Bay Area cities and think, why don't some of these pretty aggressive cities, why don't they also cap the fees on on what's charged to customers? I don't know. It seems like the right thing to do. And this is what I was starting to say and didn't finish. I have read somewhere or heard on a podcast or something that there are cities where bicycle deliveries of meals from restaurants to customers have have taken shape. 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.