Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. (ACI) for Rate Period 14 (July 2015 to June 2016). (Public Works 274)
I like hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing an integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period. 14th July 2015 to June 2016. Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, I am Liam Garland with the Public Works Department. It is good to be back in front of you on the issue of balancing our interest in protecting ratepayers from rate increases, along with fair wages and benefits for the sorters at Alameda County Industries facility. As you may remember, we were discussing this issue on April 7th in an informational report. I'm back here with the options clarified and ready to walk through them. And this time there is a staff recommendation around option number three. So let me lay those options out right now. The first option is the indexed increase. This is the requirement of the franchise, essentially a series of cost of living indices applied to to the franchise, and that would be for 2.8%. The second option is HCI Alameda County Industries or ACS original application for 10.58%. And the third option is the negotiated compromise that was achieved within about a week of before the information report I shared on April 7th. That compromise brought the initial rate increase for next year down to 7.7%. One of the questions that was raised in the last council meeting was to really dig in to the issue of Alamy to his fair share of the rate increase. So I want you to take a look at this picture you have in front of you. These are sorters from Alameda County Industries facility. The material going along that sorting line. You've got material from Alameda. You've got material from Livermore and also San Leandro. Interestingly, San Leandro, even though it's the home city for the facility, actually has the least amount of tons going into it. That's about a little bit over 7000 tons. The most are coming from Livermore and that's over 16,000 tons. And Alameda is right in the middle there, although that arrow is unfortunately placed toward that Saunders head. The it's over 10,000 tons. And they're this is where the the portion of Alameda is recycling going in the facility is about 31.1%. Now, the next few slides are going to walk through how we turn that percent into a number. And that number is the 8000 $849,012. That is the incremental wage and benefit increases to the orders. And so that's what I'm going to do in the next few slides here. You can see a similar table to what you've seen before, but updated and the first or the second column that says staffing agency remember that was the temporary staffing agency of formerly contracted with by Alameda County industries and they're the burdened rate essentially the all in costs for HCI were about 1391 under that I just give me one moment. It's about 1391 under the state staffing agency. And the actual rate being paid to the sorter was roughly $9 by the staffing agency. Then the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance occurred and there was a jump. So we went from 1391 per hour on that burn rate to 1783 per hour. And importantly, that jump mostly represents a jump in hourly rate. So that jumped from $9 per hour to $14.50 per hour. So that's what's happening currently. And essentially San Leandro is rate payers are paying this incremental difference as we speak. The question in front of us is what to do on July 1st moving forward. And there the jump. There's another jump and that's the $25.60 as a burned rate per hour, although this is a little bit different in the sense that most of that jump relates to additional benefits. This is about affordable health care, sick vacation time, etc.. And you so you see the jump from 326 per hour and benefits, taxes, insurance up to $9.92 per hour. Now, in addition, on this table, you see that the the agreement that's been reached by the ILWU, International Longshore and Warehouse Union and ECI, it's not just for the next year, it's for the next four years. And so you will see increases that are not as steep for the next four years, but still increases nonetheless. Now we're going to take that, that and turn it into numbers upon which our rates are based. And so essentially what we've done here is we can project the cost of having the two shifts of orders with the new wage and benefit increases. That's about $4.8 million. We then back out those staffing agency costs. So those are subtracted out. You're left with a total incremental labor cost of about 2.7 million. However, almeida's portion of that is only 31.1%. That's where the $849,012 figure comes. Next we move. Through and now we've got to turn this into our rates. And here we started. If next year we were to start with our current rates, what was the revenue would be at the end of the year? It's 17.3 million or so. And so then we do some division to say, well, if we want to raise that additional $849,012, we need a 4.9% increase in rates. One more step, and that is to do the essentially that the indexed increase on top of that and with that you get the across the board 7.7% increase. So I'm hoping that that slide is clearer than the slide that was presented on on April 7th. Very clear. Thank you. Of course. And next, I want to talk a little bit about the how the stakeholders involved in this process all made significant concessions in order to help offset the increases on Almeida's rate payers. So if you take a look here, you can see that the ILWU deferred wage rate increases. They delayed employer contributions to the 4a1k plan until year three in order to help offset the rate increases, Alameda County and the industries agreed to forego 10% of its profit on the wage increase. So this is something that's built into our franchises the that 10% profit and they agreed to forego it for that 835,000 plus dollars. They also agreed to add an additional service or pilot, an additional service for a multi-family residence and annual boppy pickup program. Finally, the city or city staff had proposed to agree to forego the 10% city franchise fee. Again, just on the incremental wage increase and on that, I'm actually going to pause. Our assistant city attorney, Andrew Gopnik has a comment to share on that. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Enrico Panik. Assistant city attorney. As Mr. Garland just indicated. Option three before you requires the stakeholders each to make concessions. And I want to speak to you just briefly. About the city's concession. And that is forgoing a portion of the city's franchise fee in order for the city to do that. We have to amend the franchise agreement. And under the Alameda City Charter, Section 18, dash one, that amendment to the franchise agreement can only be done by ordinance. So if you were to choose this option today, that portion that you see up there of the city's contribution to this deal, we'd come back to you at the appropriate time for an ordinance that would amend the agreement. The resolution that is before you that supports that recommendation does not include the change to the franchise agreement. It only adjust the rates, the repair rates. I'm available to answer any questions you have on that point. Thank you. So what staff has done is to talk directly with Alameda County Industries about this. And essentially Alameda County Industries, because of the urgency involved in this, you have three cities all acting in concert for all of their different portions of these additional wages and benefits and some bank confidence that Alameda County Industries is concerned about how they're willing to move forward. And what essentially that means is they'll have to pay the franchise fee. So even though the spirit of the compromise was that they would not have to pay the franchise fee, they will. And in turn, what I and RCI will figure out in the next few months is what's the mechanism to essentially offset that increased cost for them? And I'll bring that mechanism back to council for for council approval. It's an issue that I'm confident it can be worked through. And just given this issue coming up now, it's something that that can be worked through later and again brought back to council. I'm happy to answer any questions about that or I can finish the presentation that we can talk more about it. Oh member. Ashcroft. I'll have some questions, but go ahead and finish your presentation. I'd actually like clarification if you have a dollar amount and what that equates to. Sure. The dollar amount is. Able to. So which dollar amount are we referring to this? 10% for city franchise fee. I believe it's 90. It's a little bit over $90,000. Thank you. Question Amendment. Member Jodi. We are getting a portion of the increase as well as part of our franchise fee. We're not waiving the entire amount, just the part that constitutes the 4.9 if we approve. Oh, well, there's like two components, right? There's exactly. There's two commands, essentially. What's going to happen now is ACI is paying this franchise fee on the incremental cost, which it had not planned on paying and the cities receiving it on that additional cost for that franchise fee. And I'll have the precise number in just a couple of minutes. Next, I want to just make sure it's super clear what the ratepayer impact is of this third recommended option. If you look at the blue cells in the upper right hand corner, those are in the 20 gallon and 32 gallon subscription categories. Those are the most common categories. About 95% of all Alameda residents are in one of those two categories. The option number three for the 77 7.7% increase. It essentially would increase from the existing rate about $2.19 per month. So that is right over there. So you compare that with that option two, we had talked about on April 7th, and you see the difference is about $0.80 or so. So we've been able to help offset that increase by about $0.80. And we're at that $2, an extra $2.19 per month. The annual impact for that. In other words, if you take that additional $2.19 multiplied by 12 for ratepayers and the 20 gallon subscription rate, they'll be paying an additional $26.28. Similarly, on the 32 gallon, the additional $2 and 76 per month has an annual impact of about $33.12. So those are the rate impacts. And remember, it's not just the jump in this coming year, it's also the rate impacts over the next few years. And so on this slide, what we've done is lined up the three options and then compared what the projected future rate impacts are among the options, option number one is the indexed increase. So there there's no there's no further negotiated wage increases under that option. Option number two is AC's original application. There you see that the the increases are between about 11 and $0.17 per per month over the next four years. Option three, remember, it's an attempt to smooth out some of those the increase. So there's not a big of a ratepayer impact that first year the the increases in future years is a little higher it's between 27 and $0.39 per month. Again, to annualize that, that means not starting this year but the following year, that as a result of this agreement between ACA and AMW, the annual impact for a 32 gallon rate subscriber would be $3.24. So with that. Oh, I just want to go over the three options staff is recommending the negotiated compromise as it's a balance of protecting that rate payer interest. Want to make sure that you know rate payers are struggling want to make sure that we're we're protecting against rate increases. At the same time is ensuring that disorders at Alameda County Industries receive fair wage and benefits. With that, I'm here for questions also. We've got folks from Allegheny County Industries and ILWU as well to answer any questions you may have. Or find questions. Member Ashcraft. Thank you, Amir Spencer. So thank you for coming back with more information in this current staff report. The. I'm on page four of your staff report you refer to. Yes. One minute. Okay. So on April 27th and May 4th, respectively, the city councils of Livermore and San Leandro are set to address whether their rates should account for their portions of Asia as increased labor costs in 20 1516. So do you have the outcome of those votes? I have some, yes. So the city of Livermore voted, I believe on April 20, the 30th. They directed their staff to bring back a proposal that is very similar to our number third option, essentially forgoing the their franchise fee for going as high as profit on the 10% same schedule of hourly rate and benefits that ASI and I LW have agreed to. San Leandro is up later on this month. OC not not May 4th. They they've pushed it back. Okay. And then. Okay. Going on to the. This is an attachment. Hm. Okay. This is exhibit one, the IOW use letter of understanding. That is anyway dated April 2nd in the last paragraph, paragraph number four at the bottom of the page there says that ECI and the union agree that if any of the rate increases proved to be insufficient to support the agreement memorialized in Attachment A, then the parties will continue bargaining in good faith towards a mutually acceptable initial collective bargaining agreement. So. At what point will we, the city, know if these proposed rate increases are going to be sufficient or not to support this agreement? Sure. I'm actually going to have comment from ECI and Fred from the ILWU. Answer that question. Appreciate it. Mayor. Council members can't connect with HCI with the MRU. What we're trying to do is set a structure to go forward for the next five years. We knew we wouldn't get we had some elements left in the agreement to still do. However, we're bound by NORAD and all that we have to to finish out. The bigger issue for C.I. is our credit facilities with our banks are up in June. We have to have city votes on this in order for the banks to believe that we can move forward, for them to restructure our debt and for us to go forward. So it's eminent that we had to show some things, cooperation with with the union, with labor, that we basically have a deal. The intent is we get the votes from the cities. All cities agree we're going to move forward July 1st on this, and that's a commitment from us. I appreciate that. I'm not sure. I've had my question answered, and maybe this is where the union rep comes in, but. He did the wording that they agree. If any of the rate increases proved to be insufficient to support the agreement, then the parties were continuing bargaining in good faith toward a mutually acceptable initial collective bargaining agreement . But if the rates are going up, doesn't that. Yeah, the rates going up this hour. Yes. What we've presented should be adequate to do what we need to do here. For how long? Or maybe. This year. For this year. But aren't we looking at an agreement that goes. Back five years? Yes. And there's slight increases involved in this presentation each year, the small incremental increases in future years. And is it Ace's position that those small incremental increases will. Be just the initial? Yeah. Once we're done, we will be signed with a bargaining agreement shortly. We're almost we're almost complete. And I think Mr. Packer would agree. I have been speaking to the microphone, please. Thank you. Absolutely. Oh, we I would agree with Kent that with that, we are very close to an agreement. What you see there is similar to what we did in other cities, because basically the the although we're bargaining with a private employer, the outcome of that bargaining depends on their major contracts, which are public contracts. So when those public contracts are, you know, come and it's one of the things that Alameda County overall has lacked, it's recognized that for the holding, but it has in recognize that for delivering the recycling services. And so what we what we put in all the agreements that come before a vote, there's one that came after the vote, but the ones that come before a vote of any of any civic body have included that that if if we don't get the support of the civic body, the city council or the garbage district in other cases, then we're in a position where we're going to have to keep bargaining and. Because we look because the underlying economics shift. But. Okay. So just to be clear, so it is ILWU U's position that the proposed rate increases over the next five years as as outlined in option three are sufficient to meet your needs. Yes. All right. And just to be clear, at the you know, right now we're in this process that you're contemplating in which is going forward through the county, will create a standard where there won't be the kind of of of of ups and downs that there are right now in the value of the labor of the people sitting here to sort through the recyclables. So it's there. We're coming to a point of an even standard or a for recycling contract, which will shift. And the, you know, you see smaller increases because it's the lift in the beginning that goes with the medical benefits, the really big. Okay. Thank thank you both for those explanations. Remember, they sag. So it's just a question. So just a. A burnish the point even more. So it's your both of your sense that the rate increases contemplated tonight are sufficient, but that if there are not, you can go back. You are both committed to having some kind of continuing dialog. And did I hear right that what's drive possibly driving any uncertainty that can lead to some shortfall in the revenue? Am I hearing it right that that was driving that is the the medical portion of the. No, it's it's the cities. It's having all three cities participate. Okay. It's really and right now, as it stands, Livermore came back with, you know, they voted unanimously to follow up on the recommendation that staff gave, which is essentially the exactly the same program. They just got to go back for a second vote, just like. Just like we did. Last time where, you know, you give direction. They gave the direction to go with the recommendation. San Leandro will take place on the 18th. And the reason they wanted to go last is to make sure everyone else did their part and then they're going to do their part. And if there was any shortcomings, potentially make up any little differences. But obviously, we want it to be fair across the board. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other clarifying questions or I'd like to ask Steph real quick? So it was my understanding that there were annual reviews, but that still take place in outside of. So could you explain what could happen that then? Oh, yes. So the our franchise requires an annual adjustment. So every year I will be in front of you whether maybe whether. You like it or not. And those reviews, they happen in essentially you go two years with an indexed rate review, which is essentially applying those cost of living indicators. And then in the third year, there's a detailed rate review where they're we get to open up Alameda County Industries books, look at and more nitty gritty, detailed their expenses and reconcile those and come back to council with a recommendation for an adjustment for the next year. So in regards to member Ashcraft questions earlier, could there be a difference in these numbers on an annual basis for the next between now and 2020? Sure. These are definitely project projections. And let me just make sure we're all talking about the same thing in terms of those projected future rate impacts. So for option three, we're looking at that $0.27 to $0.39 per month. Those are indeed projections. I can't say with certainty that they will be exactly that. Thank you. Then, Brody. I want to be clear. The slide you just showed. Is that the impact of the just the wage component and or. I thought the slide before was the actual total impact of I mean, the stage six. I'm sorry. Slide five. The $2 in 19. That's that's what we're being asked to pay for exactly for this adjustment that would be in effect as of July 1st, 2015. And of that, $2 in $0.19 for, well, let's choose 276 for the 32 gallon. And of that, $0.27 is what's attributable to paying the increased wages to the recycle workers. I know a little different. So the, the I think you're going to the next chart. Ah yes. Yes. And that is that came out the following year. If you look at ASI and I'll use agreement in terms of wages and benefits, those go for multiple years. So if you take those assumptions and build that into, oh, what will our rates probably adjust by based on those increases we're talking in that 27 to 39 cent per month range. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I was trying to see if we could hone in on of the of the annual impact to the rate payer or what portion is actually attributable to bringing these these workers up to a living wage? It's a dollar 76. All right. So an annualized, that's a 12 plus whatever. Okay. It was like $15 a year. Approximately, if you're going to pay that at 2.8% on top anyway. Right. So it's that was a number I was looking for. Thank you. Thank you. What member asked Mr. Garland. In your staff report, you also mentioned something near and dear to my heart, which is the multifamily pickup. HCA has also agreed to a pilot to pilot a multifamily and your bulky pickup by July one, 2015. Are you going to report back to us or are you just going to start it on a date? So our plan is, if we have if this recommendation is approved, then Kent and I will sit down. We'll figure out the what the requirements and the structure of that program will be. I'm happy to bring back there's an information report or something else to the Council on on that. I probably would be more interested in how we're going to inform the public, because we certainly hear those complaints about driving down the street and seeing couches and whatnot, you know, discarded on the sidewalks. And this is something that this program is meant to to address. So I just want to make sure that however you want to do it, it's an effective means of getting the word out to the community. Thank you. All right, speakers, thank you. We will have poet Pedro Sanchez and Mr.. Mr. Fred Pecker. Then we're with Abbe. If you can try to limit your comments to 3 minutes, that'd be appreciated. We want to start on this, Okaloosa because the car is enormous. Pedro Sanchez hit remarkable Valencia. Good evening, mayor councilmembers. My name is Pedro Sanchez and I work for HCA. Well, my mortgage on the door meant it was hard. In retrospect, I know it's not impossible. It's real. Open ended are people are also. As we have as we have mentioned in the past, working on a recycling facility is not an easy. Job. It's an honorable job. But generally as with many hazards. It believe Radhika and told the local residents the persistence was contenido. It is the Ramsey Clark what a ham blow is. When Lawrence declared I supported him because he was America's patron. No, the Positano said they'll continue to seek lucky. The Hassocks are rooted. In what the residents deposit in the recycling containers. For example, it is great to recycle hypodermic needles and other medical equipment, but not by putting them in the recycling containers. Is whether to the people this was done the scheme because there are no deposit envelopes and they'll contain a lot of them. It is great to recycle all unused chemical substances, but not by deposit them in the recycling container. Like a kettle. The silicone install escape togo local resident is the Alameda San Leandro in livermore the persistence was contenido and the classic lucky must are there nosotros lobo almost pasar por la linea this is sort of their companion sky. What I am trying to say with this is that everything that the residents of Alameda, San Leandro and Livermore deposit in the recycling containers, we later see it in the sorting belts at AC. That photograph here scheme is companeros so CNN that doesn't mean western con d'italia il trabajo can otro lado. This realism was the work on the ANC icon and material collected. It's Como resident is Ella made up of those in the photographs that my coworkers are holding them. Back of me show in detail the work that we as recyclers do at HCI day in, day out with the material that you as resident of Alameda produce. La Ciudad de Alameda Alley. Welcome Mucho Citrusy, ladies. Sam Puesto la mater the lograr los proximos anos settle this part of the issue. The city of. Alameda as well as many other cities, have set their goal in the next few years to reach zero waste. Nosotros Los K-Dramas and L.A. Classic Lucky the NCIS almost La Primera Linea produced this commercial that Lofgren submitted to settle this of the issue. Those of us. Who work in recycling and HCI are the first line so that you as a city can reach your goal of zero waste. It's companeros. Yo, estamos oya, keep it up. I will say this. Como representantes elektra's de la Ciudad de Alameda Ketamine Los Barcelona Society use barangay appointed adoption risk assessments. Not a romantic parakeet, although nosotros los trabajadores the Ramsey Clark of the NCAA Lofgren lagrimas Alexandrovich Saladino. Even if Ito's otros is yet the end in. The Alameda Mutual crisis. My coworkers and I are here today to ask the US elected representatives of the City of Alameda to take the steps necessary by supporting option three so that we, the recycling workers at ASI, can reach the now standard for wages and benefits that other Alameda County recycling workers have. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Ms.. Yes. Hi. Good evening once again. Fred Becker with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local six I. Just say that, you know, we know that there's huge support for recycling as public policy. And as we've moved forward with the campaign, which is a broad based, based campaign on including the environmental community, the religious community, the immigrant community we have. We have been very gratified to see that people realize that as you add new services, that there's a cost to them. And we look forward and appreciate the deliberations that your staff have done. And we need your support so that we can raise. The value of the work that people do in recycling to a way that people can support their families. And this is a structural change where in Alameda County, for whatever the historical reasons are, the cost of labor was was really under under bid or undervalued. And we're in the process of trying to change that. And you're part of a historic change, which is part of making recycling truly sustainable. So we appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. I'm Ruth Harvey with the Sierra Club. We are a part of the Alameda County Sustainable Recycling Campaign, which is a coalition of organizations, including environmental groups, labor organizations, faith based organizations, health and safety organizations, and immigrants rights groups that have been working for the last three years to raise the wages and benefits of our recycling workers in Alameda County. And we are thrilled to tell you and we are excited that the city of Alameda could be joining city of Oakland, city of Fremont, Newark, Union City to raise the wages of our recycling workers to be parity with those in San Francisco and San Jose. And so we heartily support your work and the work of your staff. We very much recommend the staff recommendations to put this tough recommendation for option three and appreciate the city of Alameda being part of the Alameda County countywide. Standard for wages and benefits for recycling workers. From Rob and I'm Bill Smith. And those are the only slips I have for this item. Rob Browder, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association. You know, some of you have not heard my my great grandfather was a founding partner in Oakland Scavenger. My grandfather was a garbage man and my dad was a garbage man. So I know a little bit about garbage. Didn't come out right. I will tell you when they were in the garbage business. The idea of recycling, as I've told you many a time, was throw the battery in the back of a truck and we'll be fine. I don't think they ever envisioned the type of recycling that we're trying to do today. And I know that they never envisioned folks working on a line, picking out hypodermic needles and all the other stuff that gets put into the recycling. And while I can assure you the membership that I represent. Would be very happy to be talking about a negotiated seven and a half percent decrease in the rates. That's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. RCI does a terrific job. From our point of view. They're very receptive to our issues that we have. They bend over backwards. They really do to provide us service in the district. They are taking the lead in putting out clear stream units and bagging the city cans for our events for the 4th of July event. And obviously, we also agree. That people deserve a living wage, especially for this type of job, that frankly. And I'll go ahead and say it. No one in this room except for those people that are doing the work would ever do this kind of work. So they deserve the increase. Asai deserves the increase, and we urge you tonight to go ahead and pass this and give Asai their 7.7% increase. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the Council and staff. I'm Bill Smith, resident of Alameda, and also happened to be president of the Society of Virtual Science Engineers. Update CWA 9119 out of Livermore Lawrence Livermore National Lab. And about a week ago I went to the Little Moore City Council meeting and introduced myself and I thought, I want to report back. And parts of the meeting relevant in earlier discussion tonight, how to get people out of the council chambers early and make the meeting shorter. They've got Livermore has a beautiful Bankhead theater. I'd love to see an arts center like that in Alameda. So they talked about that. That went pretty quickly. And they have they have a beautiful new city hall with lots of offices. All right. And for the staff. And then I went to the city hall expecting to go inside to get into the council chambers. No, you walk way back behind and the council chambers are two double wide trailers with a little antique or walking up. It don't even barely hold 100 people total. I think 102 of the fire marshals and the chairs are uncomfortable and the tables are, too. And so the meetings will not last till midnight. So there's it's my suggestion for you there to emulate your colleagues at Livermore to make commuting meeting short. But on a more serious note. Livermore is known as the Cowboy City, is a liberal rodeo every summer there. And they go by it and it's very conservative and. When I talked, told him about what it means to have a low wage worker, that that low wage is not free, that low wage requires a government term, but those times are going to make it to pitch in the food, the food stamps, the housing assistance for affordable housing. And I think some you've heard me talk about affordable housing here in town before and other other things. So it requires subsidies. And even The Wall Street Journal is beginning and featuring editorials on that these days, too, that these low wages are really not good. So I really urge you to support and follow your lead and your colleagues in Livermore and vote for unanimously for this. Thank you. Thank you. That was our last public. Speaker Member Comments. Vice Mayor I think I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the recommendation of the staff. All right. Adopt the resolution that establishes the new integrated waste collection ceiling rates in what was described as option three. I appreciate the work that's been done to get us to option. 3/2, Madam Mayor. All right. Any discussion member ASHCROFT just briefly. I think that on page four of the staff report, Mr. Garland did such a nice, well-stated description of what we're doing, why we're doing what we're doing, that this 7.7% increase balances almeida's interest in keeping rates reasonable with ensuring Ace's sorters receive fair pay and benefits. And I think that really and it was just said by our articulated by our previous speaker but that when you're when you have people who are working full time and yet they're prepared, bear with me and my finicky iPad that you have people who are working full time. And yet until this agreement was reached and by the way, I also want to congratulate ECI, because I know they came a long way, too, in the negotiations. And I read your your statement, your letter. And I do understand the financial implications of your requirements to the bank who's financing your operation. And I think for all of us who put our bins out on whatever night you put your remember to put your bins out, you're just so happy that the next morning when you come out, they're empty, they've been emptied, and you put them back where they belong. And you don't really think much about what goes on after the truck picks those those containers up. But we want to see the workers treated fairly, but we want to see the company continue in business. And I think the city ILWU and ACI all did a good job in coming together. But it means that this will this is the cost. And I think it's a modest one. But to provide fair wages and benefits, which include medical benefits, sick pay, vacation in a modest retirement fund. I think this is both reasonable and just and that, as Mr. Smith just said, there is a cost to society when workers go without these basic benefits. So I'm delighted that I think we're moving towards supporting this this option three this evening. Thank you. Member Ody I thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to echo the comments made by my colleagues previously and the Speaker's, you know, to get where, where we are today on this. It's just amazing and it's a testament to everyone that worked together. ACA, the Sierra Club, ILWU and working towards this is the third time this has been before us. I'll try to be brief, but you know, if you remember the situation that occurred just recently before the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance, these workers were employed by the staffing agency. And then there was a lawsuit because they, the staffing agency, felt they shouldn't comply with the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance. And then RCI took it upon themselves to bring those workers into ACA, comply with the living wage ordinance, give these workers a well-deserved and, you know, well overdue increase in pay, and then they collectively bargain with ILWU to, you know, bring them out of poverty and give them the respect that they need. So I think if you look at a dollar 76 a month, $21.12 a year, you know, to have all of these families now have a living wage, be health insurance, not on Medi-Cal anymore, you know, not not costing the state additional money. You know, and see, starting to put money away for retirement, which probably two years ago when they were making $9 an hour, they never dreamed of. I think that is a very small price to pay for for restoring dignity to these families. And I'm going to be supportive of this as well. Member Data, thank you. Just a minute. Continuing clarifying questions. So if we pursued option one, the increase would be 2.8%. And in general, from year to year, we adjust the wages based upon the index, which in this case is 2.8%. Now, the way that I'm reading option three is that in addition to the index, there is the adjustment to account for the wage and benefit impact stemming from the living going to a living wage, in which case the adjust. It isn't 2.8%, but in total it's 7.7%. And within that is the 2.8%. So the question that I have is so when I read table three is that makes that mean that the 7.7% from 2016 to 20 15 to 2016 is also going continuing for the next year, for the next year, or is the next year really just subject to the the the typical index adjustment that we do from year to year based upon some index? It will be a tip, actually. Let me pause and let's hear here from Marva Sheehan from age. Okay, with that answer. Good evening. I'm Marva Sheahan with HFT consultants, and we're the consulting firm that has been reviewing the numbers and putting together with staff and with ACI next year. And actually to your response, your question that. The increase that you're seeing on there, the $0.33, the 39 cent. Numbers are. Attributable to the sort of wage increase. That's just that subject. Okay. Next year is what we call a cost base. Year or a detailed review year where we will. Go in and look at the collection operations in detail and look at those cost and come up with what the rate increase will be. The sorter piece. Will. Be another element, but next year we're looking at everything in total. Okay. And that's important because I think the message that I'm trying to drive home to the community is that in this instance on here on May 5th, 2015, we're making an adjustment to reflect that the workers need a living wage, but we're also making adjustment based upon the usual way we make adjustments, which is the index and the per the way that we make adjustments. The following year, we're going to do the cost approach, which you just mentioned, but then we'll get back on track to the index approach. Then we'll do the index. I believe it. You go to two years index and then back to the cost base. Long story short, we are we are not saying that we're we're plugged in to a 7% increase all the time because because we will be we will have already baked into the cake the the the living wage effects. Now, having said that, though, there is also, you know, the fact that we will need to take into account uncertainties with regard to health benefit impacts, but that will still be dealt with in the usual way of doing things next year, which is the cost approach and the subsequent years, the index approach. Okay. I'm sorry. I think health care is actually a good one. We will in the index year, they tend to go up by the index of the 2 to 3%. But I think any of us know we've yet to see health care premiums only go up 2 to 3% in actual life. They tend to be for some reason, in double digits no matter what. Those are the things that we'll. Look at when we see what the. Actual cost of things or have incurred for the drivers. And again, the detailed review is on the collection costs. We do not get into historically, we've not gotten into the detail costs on the Murph. That will be something that we will be discussing with ACA next year. And Amir, final point. One is I appreciate the charts that you put in. There are very graphical and the way that, you know, you had your bar charts really nice. I really like that. And the second and final point is, last time I raised the point that I wanted more information with regard to San Leandro and Livermore and I and I feel like I have that information. So I'm certainly ready to move forward. And then I want to commend all the council members for your comments. I join in with you on those comments. I commend members of the community for coming forward. These are multiple meetings now. Staff great job on the report and negotiating this compromise. I think it truly does meet the needs of the workers, the ratepayers and ECI. So I really appreciate everyone working together on this. And as to the workers, thank you for showing up one more time. Do we? So we have a motion to call the question. All those in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Item six Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Community Development BLOCK Grant Fiscal Year 2015 through 2025 year strategic plan in the Fiscal Year 20 1516 Action Plan and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications.