Recommendation to Provide Further Direction to Staff Regarding the Allocation of $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government Through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. (City Manager 10021030/Finance 10024051)
To provide further direction to staff regarding the allocation of 28.68 million of funding from the federal government through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to assist with recovery from the impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic. Thank you. And I think we have a couple of members of our finance department. This one. Correct. I do, too. But I'm also looking for. There she is. Jennifer, tell. So who's who's taking the lead on this one? Jennifer will be presenting the report. Tonight and taking this to. Good evening, Mr.. Good evening, madam mayor and council members. I'm Jennifer Patel, budget manager in the finance department. This evening, staff is seeking for the direction from Council on the spending plan for the city's Allocation of American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funding, which may be used for recovering from the economic and public health impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic . Madame Clerk, may we please bring up the slides? Thank you. Next slide. Earlier this year, the city was allocated $28.68 million in ARPA funding. We received the first tranche of funding or half of the full allocation from U.S. Treasury in June 2021. And we expect to receive the second tranche with the remaining allocation in 2022. Recipients have until the end of calendar year 2024. To spend or obligate ARPA funds to projects and obligated funds must be spent by the end of 2020 2026. Staff first sought direction from City Council on the use of the ARPA funds at the Budget Workshop on May 20th. At that meeting, council directed staff to focus on four main eligible use categories. Those were revenue lost due to the pandemic, addressing housing, homelessness and behavioral health, investing in broadband infrastructure and providing assistance to households and small businesses. On July 20th, staff returned to council for further direction on a draft spending plan that included proposals under the four main categories identified in May. At that meeting, council made a motion to refine the spending plan with a focus on housing, with flexibility to use the revenue loss funding for housing, and to include additional funding for Wi-Fi hotspots. Next slide, please. The refined spending plan put forth by city departments includes a supportive transitional housing program, development of permanent supportive housing through either hotel acquisition or ground up build of the bottle parcel, the Feed Alameda Program and a wireless hotspot lending program. Next slide. Since the last report to council in July, staff met with the Alameda Housing Authority to identify the housing authorities prioritized list of projects which could be initiated within the next 9 to 18 months. Those projects include an Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Fund. Funding to jumpstart construction on 90 units of permanent supportive housing purchase, or at least two own of existing multifamily units or motel suites that would be restricted for low income seniors. And funding to expedite affordable housing development. Next slide. Together, these spending plans exceed the city's first year allocation of $14.34 million, and, depending on the four affordable housing development options selected could also exceed the city has full allocation of $28.68 million. With that in mind, staff are seeking direction from council tonight on specific uses of the initial allocation of $14.34 million. If City Council authorizes staff to proceed on any of these projects, we will initiate work and report back on progress and available funds at a later date. We will also bring forward any necessary budget appropriations for City Council consideration and approval. Staff from the city manager's office, the Finance Department and the Community Development Department are here and available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. You're on mute, Mayor. Sorry. I was just asking the city clerk if we had any public speakers on this item. We do not. Okay. With that, I am going to close public comment and we can just go into council questions, council direction, council comments. So I'd like to start. Okay. I don't mind. Well, let's all go left. Councilmember de Sack. I see your hand up. Well, yes. I just want to say thank you to our city staff for kind of guiding us through this whole process. It's not every day that the federal government drops any amount of money, let alone a $28 million divided in certain in two different tranches, as they call it. And in looking at staff's recommendation of the $15 million for the hotel acquisition or the ground up, ground up build, I didn't certainly supportive of that. I continue to be so. Know, I think we as a city of Alameda, we've made incredible headway. And I certainly as a councilmember, have been involved in so many of the decisions, tough decisions with regard to implementing national leading homeless prevention programs here in Alameda. And I'm speaking of many years ago, the what used to be called the Alameda Point Collaborative. So I've been very happy to be part of that. And I see the possibility of building a new facility with the assistance of $50 million as continuing that that leadership of the city of Alameda has shown. In terms of the other items, I think I think they certainly follow through on the priorities that we listed above. And I am glad to see, particularly with regard to wireless, that it was kind of honed in a little bit more in terms of how it's going to be delivered, and particularly with the Library Department taking the lead in that. So I'm glad to see that that makes natural sense to have out of libraries, whether in the West End or the East End as kind of a natural hubs of wireless activities. So I look forward to having council pass recommendations and if we have to make some tweaks, you know, I'd certainly like to work with our colleagues in making tweaks. Thank you, Councilmember de SAC. Councilmember Cox. Well, I think I saw your hand up there. Thank you very much. And I will share my my thanks as well to our to our staff. I think in terms of guidance for moving forward, I really appreciated the the focus on homeless accommodations that I think I heard very loudly in our last meeting. Learning a little bit more about some of the options. I am very interested in pursuing something that probably looks like the bottle parcel and maybe a transitional use or something at the at the big whites as well as, as I mentioned, the last the last meeting, I think we have a 20 year old city building that has not been able to find a use across the street from city hall that we can look at for some kind of resiliency and transitional center moving forward. I'd also like to really pursue how we could use some of these funds to support our 22 year commitment today. The folks at Alameda Point Collaborative in the rebuild of their various substandard housing out there that is in desperate need of of of work and that the city has said for over two decades that we will figure out how to how to help them do. And lastly, it's something that the mayor and I have talked about and we've talked about in those meetings as well. In year two, I'd really like to look at how we can use some of this money to support some sort of universal basic income pilot. I think for me, a pilot is not to show that it works. I think there's enough information coming out of existing pilots out there about the benefits, not just to the benefits of the folks who receive the money, but the benefits to the community around them, whether it's in terms of standard of living safety, public safety, etc. . And I think that we have an opportunity here, too, to really figure out how to do that and move something forward. Lastly, I would just like to ask I don't have a specific ask here, but I do think that maybe if our staff, you know, we were very blessed that the state stepped in to really provide help to renters across the state with the rental assistance and also landlords. Right. Everybody benefits. But, you know, I do think that there are likely some some folks who have been hit pretty hard by COVID and have outstanding medical costs and other things like that. I don't have a number on that, but I'm just wondering if we want to spend a little bit of time of just thinking if we're looking to that might be folks who are currently housed. How do we keep them from becoming unhoused? Is there is there any information we have or some of the programs that we run that we can help identify potential need? Again, I don't want to develop a city program for seven people, but if we were able to identify significant numbers of seniors or people who have had. I heard a story today about a family member whose parent died and now they're in the do I pay for my do I pay the outstanding medical fees for the person who is no longer with us? How do I pay my rent? And that's not something that necessarily comes under the rental side. So just to my question is, just as we as we move out of this, are there any needs out there that are not being met by the county? I have not done any research. I would expect our staff probably know this better than I do through the homeless strategic plan and whatnot about what our what things are out there. But I just think, you know, if we could just be looking at whether or not there are some places where we can fill fill holes in the net to help those who are most vulnerable. I think that that would be fabulous. Those are my comments. Thank you. I see. Vice Mayor. I think I saw your hand up. Yeah. So I think stuff that I work on this I very much like what's included in option one. But I do want to add one other thing, which is I really think that we need to be looking at alternatives. I appreciate the idea of looking at a ground up project on on the Bible parcel. I just don't want to be limited to those too, relative to figuring out how we how we add more affordable housing stock. And to that end, I also really want us to consider community land trust, public land trust options. I think these are these are things that really will keep the affordable housing stock, keep people housed. They don't require us to go out and acquire or build ground up. They they really will give us an alternative. So I would just like to to add some sort of direction. I know we're on a really tight timeline, and so I just have concerns about if something falls through, what is the the additional do we have an alternative to the plan in place that still seeks to achieve the overall goal? And so I just want to put that out there. And I think even if we don't end up using our ARPA funds for that, that's something that we should be looking at. Thank you, Vice Mayor II Councilmember Harris Spencer. Thank you. So when I first of all, I want to thank staff for reaching out to the Army, the Housing Authority. I personally, their first item on here is evict eviction prevention and rapid rehousing funds around me to residents. And I think this is somewhat goes to the issues raised by member not quite in regards to allocating they're suggesting $2 million to be managed by a local nonprofit to assist households impacted by COVID eviction or other housing issues and finding housing and preventing displacement. So I think that I think that that's actually very important to keep families to help them right now. And it goes to what I think this money really could immediately help families stay in their homes and deal with preventing displacement. So to me, that is actually would be my first priority. The second one they have, again, under the Army, the housing authority, well, they have construct a jumpstart construction of 90 units of permanent supportive housing, and they estimate it's $8 million to expedite those first two phases. I think that's also very important. And then they also have purchase are based on of existing multifamily suites. And I don't have a pad on here. It's just a summary, doesn't have a timeline. However, it is existing buildings and then they have a price per unit of apartments going to 70,000. So these are move in ready. They describe them as I would think that that's a fast timeline as opposed to having to go out and build something from the bottom up. So I, I actually think the housing authority does a really good job and it's honestly, they would have been part of the city. But for a few years ago, under a different administration, they were separated from the city. And I think it's is appropriate to work with them and let them do their job. I want to call magic. This is what they do. I also I have the wireless hotspot lending program for that says 50,001 times 3600 annually to provide hotspots, 30 wireless hotspots. I think that that is something that I have actually been asking for for years to help people that don't have access. And especially as we've seen during COVID, how important it is that many individuals or families have been left out honestly of society during this COVID time. And I think that that that, too, is as as people are not able to participate in person, that continues to be an important need. And I know schools have tried to step up, but not every family has children that are attending schools that that's offered and not every family has children. And we have many individuals, especially seniors, that have been left out during COVID. And then I do have a concern in regards to the hotel acquisition that is currently in Marina Village in that is a revenue generating asset for even those that are owned by the city. It produces transient occupancy tax for the city. That's actually one of our few hotels in the city. And we have heard many times over the years how important that transient occupancy tax is. So I don't think it is I and if you look right now, they do currently they're operating, so they are creating revenue for the city. So I have concerns about removing one of our few hotels that produces higher level of tax dollars for the city as opposed to looking at another other ways of housing, those that are and has a transitional housing, because honestly, I think it defeats the purpose. If you're taking away tax revenue, then the city needs income to be able to provide services. And then there's also this battle parcel that is up for consideration, and I'm not sure that that's really the best use. I would like more information in regards to the fastest timeline to provide the housing. And I think the Alameda housing authorities proposals could very well be the most quick to get online, to start serving the people that need these services sooner rather than later. And I think it is more than likely going to be the most effective use of any income, any dollars. By the city to use to meet these needs as opposed to the city doing it on its own and not working with the housing authority. Those are the theater. Alameda. I think that's continues to be a great program if there's any you know, I, I absolutely support continuing that program to some dollar amount, as we think may be appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. So I will start by saying I strenuously object to any expenditure at this time to the housing authority, the Alameda Housing Authority. I would want to have a lot more information. For instance, how much money has the Alameda Housing Authority received from ARPA? Why does it need funding? The city receiver knows that there is a reference to the possibility that it could complete the North housing project sooner if it had ARPA funding from the city. But when that project was conceived of and begun, ARPA wasn't even a gleaming anyone's i. We hadn't had a pandemic, so I can't figure out whether this is just the housing authorities way of getting cheaper money because presumably there wouldn't be a finance charge from the city. And if it's just meant to supplant funds that they will get eventually, then I guess it's a loan. But I would tend to agree, not tend to agree. I very strongly agree with Vice Mayor Vela that a community housing trust is something that a lot of cities have done that allows them to do the very things that the Housing Authority is proposing to purchase properties. The Housing Authority accomplished one of these transactions recently, but they can find an apartment building that is for sale. They can do a transaction. There is a way that you guarantee that so many of the units will be will remain affordable for a certain amount of time. There's no reason that the city can't do this. And certainly working with a partner to administer and if it involves some wraparound services, those models are out there. I'm disappointed to say that as far as protecting eviction protection by the Housing Authority, I have personally been involved with more than one Alameda Housing Authority tenant and have had to go to bat for them. One of them, I was successful in keeping her in her home. The other one, sadly, a disabled woman, has been evicted and were it not for the fact that her sister has flown out free from the East Coast a number of times, and I was able to connect her with a resource , but not the housing authority, because they were absolutely no help in finding alternative housing for this disabled woman who was prepared to camp on the beach. But anyway, I just feel that there's there's a lot of complexities involved with the housing authority. And I think that there are enough important things listed in option one that we should be allocating the funds from this first tranche to and not to extend our funds, certainly at this time, without more explanation and some safeguards in place to the housing authority. Among the other things that I just wanted to include. I we're going to talk at the end of the agenda, so maybe get there before midnight about the Alameda Sun so I won't go into too much of that. There I could see allocating some money from ARPA to the sun as a, you know, small business assistance as a business affected impacted by COVID. We'll talk about that when we get to that item. The the transitional housing. I did have a question. When staff is talking on page two about supportive transitional housing program provide temporary transitional housing allows for stays of up to six months. Extend on a case by case basis. Is that the bottle parcel or another location? Can someone give me a quick answer on that one? I can jump in. Thank you, Mr. Bowden. It could be the bottle parcel. This is the idea of putting up temporary housing. The the. Gosh, the word is. Portable, so. Yeah, yeah, that can go up quickly. Go up quickly and start the services. And it could it could be a site that can move around even. But the bottle parcel is is ideal for it. Okay. And I will also disclose that last week, I think it was last week, a number of us from city staff visited yet another transitional housing development. That's the city of Mountain View has done. I do get what I call Mayor Andy when I see this, but it's it's so instructive because we could compare and contrast it to what we'd seen in San Jose in the spring. And this one was interesting in that it it was these these units, these portables, portable sort. They they look like they're containers, but they really aren't because they're insulated. They have a tracking in and they combined in separate ends of this development. There were family, there was family housing. And then there was there's a need for single adults and adult couples. The one thing I will say about the Carnegie building, I think there was a reference to that. It is not ideal for transitional housing. It's really nice to be able to give people, in addition to roofs over their heads and their own bathrooms, a little outdoor space for they can just kind of chill in the sun and and they're eating outdoors these days because of, you know, concerns with congregate settings. And I think there's other uses and maybe, you know, as a navigation center or something. But as far as housing, not so much. But anyway, I would love to see us allocate money for transitional housing. And I think the bottle parcel is a great location close to a lot of city services. I will just reiterate what came up last time and I'll say it again. Every unit needs to have its own bathroom. It's a matter of human dignity. They were telling us at the this last place we visit that, well, you know, it's a way that you get people to leave their units, otherwise they'd never leave their units . And I said, Well, we're assuming they're not going to starve themselves. And they thought that if we were adding a bathroom, we were also adding a kitchenette. No, that really increases the price. And there is something nice about being able to if you want to eat at the same picnic table or nearby somebody else. So I that's great. I know staff is still in the process working with the Marina Village in on getting the appraisal during the negotiation as far as the amount of top transit occupancy tax that it brings in to the general fund. That facility wasn't doing terribly well to begin with because the owner was willing to sign up for the Project Roomkey program, and that gave him some guaranteed income, none of which came to our total. And so that's why he's had the place on the market for a while. But we'll see. It's a business. It's a business transaction. The price and the terms have to be right. We haven't seen what the appraisal is yet. But anyway, in short, I would just say that I very much support option one. Councilmember Knox White, thank you for bringing up the guaranteed basic income. We might be able to do something even sooner than the second tranche because and I know our state lobbyist is keeping track of this, there is some state grant money that's supposed to be coming down that the governor set aside in the budget. We're just waiting for the rules that govern that. But our our state lobbyist is keeping an eye on that. So maybe even sooner than the second tranche. And I very much like the concept that I was reading into what you were talking about, keeping people from falling through the cracks because of unanticipated or just, you know, untenable expenses. It reminds me of a program in Oakland, mayor envy called Keep Oakland Housed. And there is a fund where and I'm told that people usually need to just draw from it one time they can't pay a utility bill, although there's federal funding now that will pay 12 months of your back rent, three months of your forward rent and unpaid utility bills. So be sure to call two, one one. They can give you information on how to apply, but this is something that we also might want to set aside a pool of money for, to do something based on that, to just keep people from falling through the cracks. Lots of good opportunities. Thank you. OC Councilmember Herrera Spencer Thank you. So I'd like to share that the Alameda Housing Authority does have a board and its appointed commissioners appointed by the council that offers oversight and they have meetings and I am disheartened to hear these come. Claims raised about their services. But I want to make sure the public is aware that there is an oversight board and the public is welcome to attend as meetings and report to council not to try to make them effective. But I do know that they try very hard to meet the needs and I don't know the extenuating circumstances of the particular case that was raised this evening. But I think that they serve many people and try their utmost. And I want to actually commend Vanessa for her efforts and your staff's efforts. Thank you. Okay. So I'm. I'm sorry. Who is this? Just me. Okay. Okay. So do we need. Do we need a vote on this or is this just council direction? I guess we were just looking for direction. Direction? Okay. I would say. Fine. Yeah, I'd say the majority are saying we like option one with the enhancements of something akin to keep Alameda housed and something akin to a community land trust. Council are not quite. And I think that generally is agree. So I am definitely losing interest in the Marina Village and personally. So I just want to make that clear in my kind of transitional housing comments that staff is aware and also I would be interested in looking at if we could do the bottle parcel for less because it's not doesn't have the purchasing of the. I would like to look at how we can provide some, whether it's just water and sewer or whatever else, infrastructure support for for reshape. Oh. Thank you. I wasn't in there, but in the city manager's recommendations, that was kind of hidden in some clever language. No, I meant to say. I meant to say exactly that. Thank you for reminding us. Thank you. I just want to thank you. Okay. All right. Okay, everyone, thank you so much for your input and thank you staff for all your hard work on this. All right, then we are moving on to item six D. Adoption of resolution and approving a revision to the public safety retiree. The provisions in the Executive Management Compensation Plan to provide up to five years of service credit for time served as chief, assistant chief and or Deputy Chief in another agency. Thank you. And I believe we have our human resources director, Nancy Bronstein, joining us. Yes, she's coming. Okay, good. Here she is. Welcome, Miss Bronstein. And Madam Kirk, do we have public speakers on this item? Not we do not. Okay, then I am closing public comment and we will just launch right into Ms.. Braunstein. Welcome. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. I wanted to provide a brief a brief background. For you on this item before you tonight. In 2000. 19, city council approved. A modification to public safety, retiree health benefits for public safety chiefs hired from other agencies. And this modification allowed up to five years of service credit for actual time, served as a police or fire chief and another agency toward the ten years of service credit required to earn a retiree medical benefit from the city of Alameda. The item before you. Tonight is to is. Requesting to include time served as a deputy or assistant chief at another agency toward the five years of service credit. So we're just looking to expand who is eligible for that five years of service credit. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer thank you, Mayor. I have clarifying questions with Brownstein and thank you for your initial comments. The retiree medical benefits that you're speaking to. Can you describe what that is, that essentially lifetime medical or what is it? It is a single. Party lifetime medical benefit. So the. At some point, the employee. Transitions to a medicare supplement plan. But it is a. Lifetime benefit. For the employee. Only. And is that offered to all employees of the city of Alameda? It's offered to public safety employees. So not all. It is it's been negotiated. For public safety. All right. Thank you very much. So. So I don't know if anyone else had any questions before I offer my comments. Any other clarifying questions for Mr. Bronstein? Counsel. Go ahead with your comments. Councilor Hurst Herrera Spencer. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Miss Bronstein, for those answers. So at the policy level, I have concerns about this proposal. I we have employees, obviously, and I support our current employees. And we have a system of how they progress. I understand that this actually encourages or somehow chips away, I would say, at the policy level of bringing in people from outside for the highest level positions that worked in other agencies and reduces somehow the benefits over time for our long term employees at the policy level. And so and I think we all know that this retiree lifetime medical benefit is only offered to public safety, is extremely expensive for the city. And and we know that we have significant amounts currently of pension and other pension, OPEB, other pension. You all can help me with employee benefits, which is what this medical falls under. So I, I will not be supporting this. And I am very concerned about continuing to, at the policy level, chip away at our. But I feel like for our long term employees then to have outside employees be brought in at the high level and offer these very expensive benefits for the city. That to me makes sense for a long at this point. This is what our city has decided long term for our long term employees that are eligible for this essentially lifetime medical benefits for this one group. Most of our employees are not eligible. And most people in the United States, of course, and in our city and our taxpayers do not receive lifetime medical benefits. So I think it's a serious problem to continue to lower the bar of who this is offered to. Thank you. Thank you. The council comments. Councilmember decide. My quick comment is I could understand making changes for the head positions. But but I'm not I'm I'm not convinced about the changes for the assistant or the deputy positions. I think we really should be encouraging people to kind of grow through the ranks rather than kind of slotting people from outside into the higher positions. So but I understand why we might need to have these kinds of of of packages as if we're trying to recruit someone who's going to, you know, take the top positions. I'll leave it at that. This is meant for the fire chief. Correct. Assistant Chief and or deputy chief. Oh, to. Clarify, it's just to provide service credit for somebody who's being hired at that top position. So it would only be for somebody coming from the outside to be the fire chief. Or police chief to give. Them credit for time served, maybe in a larger. Agency where they were an. Assistant or a deputy. Oh, okay. But where they aren't coming as a fire chief, there is not an equivalent position, not a lateral. Exactly. It's a move. Did you want to add to that, Mr. Levitt? Yes. And there was one other clarification when I looked at the resolution. It had been changed in the recommendation, but not in the resolution that I didn't see in the resolution. And that was we we were recommending that it was only that credit was only given if they worked in another agency and had benefits of similar type in that other agency. And then I think. I'm sorry, that. Did not get it got changed in the resolution, but I think you got the early on draft and not the final resolution that had that new language. I was just looking at the resolution just now. But if you look at the recommendation and say manager recommendation, we only are recommending that they would get credit if they had a similar type benefit. So only if they had retiree health in another organization and they were moving over here to be the chief. Councilmember de SAC. Okay, great. With that clarification, I'd support this. I think I just talked with the city manager about this. I thought this was for also for the assistance and bringing in deputies. So I'm glad that's not the case. Thank you. Other comments? Okay. Maybe we have a real cover, please. We still need that motion. I'm so sorry. All right. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Do we have a second from anyone? Well, if we don't have a second, we won't have a vote. But you know that by now. Does anyone want to offer a substitute motion? Amended motion. Well, I would say this motion dies for lack of a second. All right. Now, remember, they thought. What if we go with this and then sunset this after five years just to see how it goes? Could you explain what you mean by that? That we would just adopt the resolution but say that we're going to five years from now revisit this? If we want to go if we want to continue this or not. And so that would be part of the motion. If I had to a second. If we if we. You need to make a motion because the previous one failed. Or we can make the motion and then I can amend it. You want someone to make the motion that you're proposing? So can I just ask can I say quick question? My understanding is you're basically you're you're suggesting that we continue what we have done, which is basically negotiate every contract with a new chief and give them this. I mean, we have basically given every chief that has been here in the last ten or 15 years the same benefit that has come from outside. This is not a new thing. I mean, I'm happy if that's the way we get to to a vote. I'm happy to to to put some sort of timeline. I just want to call out that it's you know. I would put a timeline on it. I I've got a question about council remarks, its statement. I am trying to remember in the last 10 to 15 years how many chiefs from the outside we've had. And I know that that predates the sorry city manager and h.r. Director. We did have a recent fire chief from an outside agency, the other fire chiefs. I can remember all came from within rfd, the before Chief Joshi. The last two. 1 to 3? No, at least two, three. Fire and police chiefs. I can remember all came from APD Council over NOx. Wait, am I missing something? No, but that's still the the the external candidates that have come in have been that we have offered this because it's a problem hiring from outside of. People are losing a major benefit that they have it. There exists I mean we went through a whole thing with the last fire chief because some people were really wanted an outside fire chief. I think that I think it's important to have a wide pool. So anyway, I. I think you said contradict what I had to say. If if Tony needs a timeline, I'm happy to just just move this forward. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer, did I see your hand go up? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And I did want to thank you for your comments. When you. I think you're right in regards to the promotions from within the department. Historically, other than the most recent fire chief and now the most recent police chief, and this policy from it looks like this started 2019. So it's not actually that old of giving these credits, but getting back to providing lifetime medical and the cost of that for something that's just come in. I know that we have we have not had those types of candidates very often when they reflect historically. So thank you. For bringing that up. Hey. And a vice mayor of L.A.. I also just my understanding is, is that we have still had applicants, despite this being the policy, the existing policy, and that people have accepted the job that. That were the top choice. Even with this policy in place, I guess my concern is what's the point of having a policy if ultimately folks are going to come in and then immediately try to negotiate or if we're changing this policy now, who's to say that the next time we do a recruitment for a top spot, this happens? And then just the other thing is that we've also heard calls for us to to defund or to limit funding for some positions. And this is a significant expenditure. So I would want to have this conversation relative to the city budget. I'm also concerned we, I believe, have started negotiations with a number of different units. And so to Councilmember de SACS point where he was asking what positions this would apply to if we're applying this to the top positions. I would certainly hope that this is a conversation that we have relative to, you know, that we would take into account the differences between what our executive compensation looks like relative to our line staff. So at this time, I'm not going to be supporting this for those for those reasons. Councilmember thank you both very. Councilmember de SA. Yeah, just if I can explain, you know, why I like a time limit. I mean my history of all the fire chiefs and police chiefs that we've had. I always thought we seemed to have like grown people through the ranks. So I'm confident in kind of the pipeline that that we've created. I think for the most part, every single one of them, you know, have just been stellar. The first out of city police chief before I began on city council, as I remember, was Chief Mathews for the police. And then but then he had, you know, created a great staff and then that grew from from there. And then there was another police chief, I think came who came from Tibbets. Wayne Tibbets came from outside of Walter Tibbets. But I think, you know, we've all Noonan was from within chief where Larry was from within. And on the fire chiefs, I think there's been a whole series of fire chiefs from within. And I think it's a pipeline that has worked. So that's why I'm kind of like in the direction of I mean, I get the idea of creating something where we kind of encourage people to come from outside. And that's great. You know, you certainly want to test the field, but I'm kind of biased towards our kind of system that we have in place. But I'm willing to experiment because if it means like getting the fire chief that that we were on the cusp of getting now, then great. You know, that's why, you know, I'm more than happy to experiment by putting like a time limit on this thing where we're going to revisit this in five years. Thank you, counselor. If I understand correctly and Mr. Levitt can confirm or deny this isn't a condition of the. Oh, no, it's not prospective chiefs. Fire chiefs, employment. It wasn't part of the employment package when that person applied. This is, you know, something that's being added on where I understand the credit in our department toward your lifetime medical benefits and I will just make a plug for fire. You heard that long list of our members of AFGE who are out fighting fires in various parts of our state. They're not just fighting fires on the line. They're breathing that air. It is very dangerous. It's harmful. It's unhealthy. Do they deserve lifetime medical benefits? You bet. I can justify that for folks who have worked here at AFGE and they should get that credit. I have a harder time seeing it for someone coming from the outside who was willing to come knowing that wasn't a part of the package. And also just the timing of we are going to have to grapple with how we pay for our unfunded OPEB liability. So those are those are my concerns. But at some point, we're going to take a vote. Councilmember decide that you. Well, it just. Seems to me then by putting a time limit on it, where it says that we're willing to experiment, but we're willing to draw back. So, I don't know, maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, too, whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. So if I recall correctly, you made your motion, Councilmember de so. All right, I'll accept staff's recommendation, but with a caveat that I'd like to add that we that we sunset this in five years, at which point in time we would revisit it. Okay. So your motion is to OC is to accept staff's limitation with the caveat that it sunsets in five years or we revisit it in five years. So why you? It sunsets every year. Is it it or not? It sunsets. It sunsets in five years. Okay. That's your motion. Okay. And then Councilor Knox. Right. Is willing to second. Okay. Any further discussion? Councilmember a councilmember I always want to add you to the Council. Mr.. Welcome aboard. But I would just request that you would add to that, that it would be consistent with the staff recommendation to amend the resolution that would only be for benefits they similarly had in another organization that would not exceed benefits. They had another organization. I can see that councilor dislike accepts that and I think you should count Councilmember NOx why it accepts that modification for his second. All right. That OC Councilmember Harry Spencer. You're muted. Council member. Okay. Thank you. At least one council member raised the issue of trying to train our first responders so that they are able to move up in the race. And I think that that is a policy a policy level I strongly agree with. And and that is something that historically our city has tried to do. So I just want to say that that is that is part of why I will not be supporting this. I have serious concerns about this type of policy. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Spencer. Okay. We ready for a vote? Let's take a roll call vote count. And, Madam Clerk. I'm sorry. I heard Spencer. No. Not quite. I Vella. No. Mayor Ashcraft. No. That fails. Two, two, three. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you, everyone, for your time and all your thoughtful comments. And they were indeed thoughtful. All right. So then we are closing item 60 and moving on to item six E and I believe we have some new folks coming on to the screen for this one. Yeah, well. While they're arriving, do you want to introduce that? I didn't. A quick introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a Second Amendment to the lease with Dreyfus Capital Partners, a Californian limited liability company, to extend the term for five years for building 29 located at 1701 monastery did Alameda point.