Adoption of Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, Extending the Term through December 19, 2023.  (Human Resources 2510)
Thank you. And Ms.. Braunstein, feel free to add. Meet yourself to do that. Yeah. And there she is. Hello. Do you need. I can. I can just keep a brief overview of this item. This is to adopt a memorandum, an extension of the current memorandum of understanding with the International Association of Firefighters. What this item does, it extends the term an additional two years. The firefighters will not receive an increase this year. In 2021, they would have been eligible for a 2% increase. They will not receive that increase. But during the extension in. 2022 and. 2023, they will receive 2%. So it extends it for the additional two years. So for a three year term. Say. Thank you, Miss Bernstein. Why don't we? Unless there are clarifying questions about the staff report, let's hear from our public speakers and then we'll go back to public to council. Comment. Are there any clarifying questions? Okay, so let's take our public speakers, please. Kirk Van Kearney. Kevin Brady. Good evening, Mr. Kearney. Hello, Mayor de Council. Nice to see you all. Existing contract with the IAF Local 689 does not expire until December 18th, 2021. The uncertainty with regards to the economy and the effects of COVID 19 on the city budgets provides too many variables when considering the renegotiation of a labor contract that has one year remaining. In my opinion, the prudent financial option is to wait and see how the coming months events unfold before discussing a new contract. Our business, community and citizens have suffered severe financial damage. The possibility of continued curfews and shutdowns is likely as the COVID 19 crisis has spiked again. The state in some cities, as well as numerous private companies, including those in our business community, have laid off workers and curtailed business activities. There is a real possibility that our city could also be forced to invoke pay cuts and layoffs. Engaging in a negotiation with only one bargaining unit, especially one that comprises a large percentage of the city's payroll and not all of the city employees is not prudent, nor is it fair to the other bargaining groups. The city and its residents are truly in this together. Now is not the time to negotiate a separate deal with IMF f 689. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kearney. And our next speaker. Trish Herrera. Spencer. Former mayor. Mr. Spencer. Good evening. Anything. Can you hear me now? Yes, that's fine. Okay. Great. Thanks. I wanted to also speak to this item. My concern that I would be echoing Kevin Kearney, the Treasurer. I believe we're out of the sorry and I'm back. When I was on council I had voted against this as had member decent. And at this point, I believe it's appropriate that we do not grant the extension. It is a serious matter if you look at the cumulative raises that the Firefighters Association have received under this contract. It is actually 20.7% since 2000 for 2014, which is very significant. I think the staff's report should have included that. I would have liked to have seen a breakdown of the annual raises for the firefighters, as well as their supposed to be a compensation that was supposed to happen in 2020. There's no update on that. There was also I think there should have been a link to the current contract. And in regards to the fiscal health in the staff report, it shares of savings at 174,000. That does not speak to. The. Additional two years of the 2%. I think it's very likely we will be asking once again all departments to have some savings. And there doesn't appear to be. And this seems to put the firefighters association in front. And I also want to share that if you listen to the transcript, if you look at the transcript from the grand jury, we the conversation with the former city manager that in fact, shares a comment by a member to request a short extension or something of the firefighters contract, which is interesting that that's what's appearing to be happening. Also, if you look at the recent contributions to member Ody and member Bella's campaigns for the their last campaigns, you will see. This is old information, I think, but it was approximately 30,000 from our Firefighters Association to member of this campaign and almost 23,000 to remember Bella's campaign, which is by far the largest donors. The next ones are like 70 $500. So I actually think they should consider recusing themselves from the vote on this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Our next speaker. Jay Garfinkel. Mr. Garfinkel, good evening. Good evening. I have a few concerns, some of which have already been shared by Ms.. Spencer. One is that the firefighters contract, which is extremely generous, is playing a significant part in the city's financial budget woes. And I think that we should not be too quick to make it even more generous. We have I don't believe there's been any comment from the Treasurer or auditor and what the financial impact will be. It appears that the financial impact will be to increase the debt or relative debt of the city. And I think we should have the expert comment from our two elected financial. People. I was concerned that the City Council participated in the drafting of the memorandum by virtue of sitting in on the closed session and then giving direction to the city manager. I'm also concerned regarding the campaign contributions that were received by two of the members, as was just pointed out. And I believe that's patently a conflict of interest. And the city attorney doesn't seem to have any concerns about conflicts of interest these days. So I think that both Councilmember Odean, Councilmember Vella should recuse themselves from any voting. I also think it should be put off until next year as the first speaker recommended. There is absolutely no urgency in taking action on this issue tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garfinkel. Next, public speaker Harman Reed. Is right. Good evening. Good evening. And. And thank you very much, Madam Mayor. And City Council members. I would just like to echo what Mr. Spencer and Mr. Garfinkel stated, and I respectfully request that Council Member Odie and Councilmember Bella recuse themselves from this from this vote based on the the contributions that they received for their for their campaigns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reed. Our next speaker. We have no more speakers. Okay. And do we have council comments and questions? Councilmember Vela, I see your hand up, followed by Councilmember Odie, followed by Councilmember Dave and Councilmember Vela. So, you know, first of all, I would recommend that any incoming member to the City Council get acclimated with and familiar with our council handbook, which we passed while that person was not on city council. Second of all, I would like to ask. There were some allegations raised essentially during the comments, and I'd like to hear from our city attorney about the conflict of interest. There also seems to be some misinformation. There are requirements that we report. Any in-kind contributions. Whether or not we have any control over those things does not make them a monetary contribution. I'd also like to find out. So I'd like to hear from our city attorney on that. And then I'd also like to wonder, Mr. Garfinkel is a top donor to Councilmember De Saag and to Ms.. Spencer. And so whether or not they need to recuse themselves from similar votes. Thank you. So, Mr. May. May I call on you next? Of course. With respect to the question about conflict of interest, there is no state or local law requirement that mandates that council members. Recuse just because they receive. Campaign contributions. And that is a longstanding and black letter law. Council members could choose voluntarily to recuse on any number of things, and that's beyond what we. Would be recommending. But in terms of. Legal requirements, state law does not require recusal based on campaign contributions, and neither does local law. And not a mayor. There was there was also a statement made about council writing the staff report, if we could hear from the staff. I wasn't involved in drafting the staff report, so I'd like to hear from staff about that. Maybe the MRU, but yeah, I could. Yeah, I can. Mr. Leavitt is your Eric Leavitt, please? Yeah, I can. I can address both. I can address that. And also just expand to make sure people are well aware of what's in the contract or what's in the what before the council tonight. So no city council member was involved and no see as far as the drafting of the staff report. So obviously in negotiation with the firefighters union, I had to go for direction to the city council in closed session and that was our involvement of the city council and no city council member or city council as a whole had any involvement in it. Other than that, I want to lay out just so to make sure people are understand because I got some emails which confused me a little bit when I read the contract. I was trying to understand how the email related to the contract, but this extension would be a two year extension. If I could just explain real quick to make sure the public understands it's a two year extension. That's very helpful. I appreciate it. Okay. It's a two year extension right now. They are scheduled to receive a 2% increase based on the salary survey survey on January of 2021. So that's in about one month from today. And with this extension, if approved by the city council tonight, that 2% would become a 0%. So that's worth $174,000 savings for the fiscal year. And about $348,000 savings for a calendar year would occur. That 2% would then go into the following year. So for what was a 2% this year would not become a 2% until 2022, not 2021. And so the reason for the action today or the action before January one of 2021, is that once the increase goes in, then it would become a take back and there would be a different type of negotiation that council would have to do with the firefighters at that time. So the increases with the two year extension as as shown is about 4% over the three years. So over the last year of the contract and two years of extension would be about a 4% versus the average that the firefighters have received, which I think one of the speakers I did did refer to was about a 3.2% per year for the previous six years. So this is a 4% over three years. Collectively, for the entire three years, it's a 4% versus the average of about a little over 3% per year. Prior to this, I think I thought that that was something that was a fair deal. And I felt the firefighters also deferred this year's increase, which actually doesn't even factor into that. What I just said, in addition that we didn't even put into the financials, is that they do pay between two and 4%. In addition on their pension and in what's before the council tonight, they would continue to pay that for the two year extension, which if this was not approved tonight, we would have to renegotiate that in one year from now. So that's not even projected in the financial savings to the city, but that is a assumed financial savings also within the contract. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Councilor, are you finished? And then. Okay, so then we're going to Councilmember Ody and then to you. Councilmember Desai. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean. Mr. City Manager So that to the fore that was on top of the 11 that were allowed by maximum law. So I mean, it's really between 13 and 15% of their salary for pension, right? Right. It's over and above the regular percentage. That is. Correct. And then there's also a contribution of 4% for OPEB that the bargaining unit is contributing that continues for another two years in this contract as well. Correct. I'll let the h.r. Director speak to. That. That that's correct. They are paying. The additional. 6% toward hers and then in addition, another 4 to 4% to the OPEB liability. And that is what I continue. With this in your I'm going to ask just for the benefit of the lay audience that might not deal in these acronyms as often as we do. Just tell us what personnel are you referring to them, if you would, please respond to that. Yes. So for the retirement system, the oh, our public safety pay an additional amount as a portion of what the employer would pay. They contribute to that. So they pay 6% toward the employer's contribution. And then separately from that, we are setting. Aside money to pay down future cost, and that is the OPEB trust. And they pay between two and 4% into that trust as part of their contribution. Thank you. And then the prize is the public employee retirement system. Public employee record. The OPEB is the other other post-employment benefits. CARLSON There was another provision in the current contract, something called the Breather Balanced Revenue Index, which created a floor and a ceiling for increases based on how well the city's financial performance was. And that's taken out of this two year extension, isn't that correct? That's correct. So for 2021, then they're forgoing a 2% increase and getting a 0%. That correct? Yes. That's correct. How much is how much are other bargaining units getting as an increase in 2021, the same year that the firefighters are taking a 0% increase? The other firefighter group will receive 2%. And then. Our public park police. Officers, it's based on a salary survey, will receive four and a half and then miscellaneous employees are 2%. Okay. So I appreciate that. Just a couple quick comments. It never ceases to amaze me that we have the you know, the haters of the firefighters come out whenever there's a contract. And I can never figure out why it is. I mean, is it because they save lives? Is it because they protect our property? Is it because, you know, when we have an arson string on Park Street, they respond quickly. So a whole block of of wooden buildings is not burned down. Is it because they risked their life and limb to in mutual aid to help the state while it's burning? Or is it because they exercise their First Amendment rights, First Amendment rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States? So, I mean, some day somebody, you know, I'm not going to be here much longer, but someday somebody will tell me, you know, what what what the problem is with firefighters, you know, is it that they do their job and they protect us and we don't like that? Or is it, you know, that, you know, they just decide on their off time to exercise their First Amendment rights and including and First Amendment rights is the right to make an in-kind contribution to a candidate of their choice that they've endorsed. And they've chosen to do that. And as Melissa, our councilmember Bella, but by the way, won the election going away, as she said, that's their right to do and we really have no control over it. So it's just kind of interesting. And I will point out that, you know, according to our charter, which I continue to read and reread, you know, the only response, the only qualification of an auditor is to be a CPA, and the only qualification for treasurer is to have investment experience. There is no requirement and maybe they have imputed on themselves some magical financial analysis powers that they're not required to have. But if I'm going to be listening to somebody's financial analysis, I will listen to our finance director and Eric Levitt, our city manager, and Jerry Bodin, our assistant city manager. So know this whole idea that, you know, campaign contributions are some time link. I mean, that that's the new standard we're going to have then. You know, I think when two people one person on council now and one that will be sworn in in two weeks decides to vote on anything related to tenants. You know, I think I'm going to be the first one in line that says you need to recuse yourself, because under your standard, if you receive campaign contributions, you're not allowed to take a vote on that. So we'll just see how far that works. So again, it just boggles my mind that there's so much angst over, you know, people that are protecting our city when, you know, they volunteered or offered to take a 0% increase during a COVID year when, you know, their fellow public safety officials are happy to take a 4.5% increase. So it is what it is. But, you know, I hope someday there's animosity towards the fire department and their hardworking employees goes away. I'll just say one last thing. I mean, it's a little bit weird for me to sit up here and have my ethics criticized by someone who accused of taking city funds and depositing it in their bank account. But, you know, life is what it is. Thank you, Councilmember Odie. I'm going to ask our H.R. director, Nancy Bronstein, to comment, because I also don't want to pit one public safety group against another. I think that anyone who risked their life in the course of doing their job deserves the measure of respect. Ms.. Bronstein, could you explain to us why it is and I believe that the salary survey has something to do with the difference in the percentage increase that fire is seeing as compared to police. Yeah. Since Mr. Latte raised that. Is that the memo you are the the negotiated agreement with all four public safety units had this coming salary increase the January 21 salary increase is based on a salary survey. Those agreements identify what agencies will survey. So we look like agencies. And we did a survey and the language in the agreement said that the salary increase would be based on the survey and could be that it would be between two and 5%. So based on the survey results, so the police were four and a half percent below market. So they see that four and a half percent fire was not below market. So that's why they're receiving the 2%. So it's just. To. Equalize salaries. In fact, fire was above market, if I recall. I guess above market and place was below. Thank you for that clarification, Councilmember Desai. Thank you. Thank you very much. I pulled this item from the consent calendar largely because I wanted to do it as I think that the council ought to extend as a courtesy the CEO, the new incoming council member, an opportunity to officially participate in the vote on a topic that is a large part of the City of Alameda budget. Granted, what's before us right now is about is about extending for two additional years a contract that will sunset on December 2021, I believe. So so that what's before us is specifically about the contract and extending the contract. But really, the topic, the subject for which this contract is being considered or for extension is a large part of our of our city hall operations. So for that for that reason, I it was my feeling that we should include the incoming councilmember. I do want to extend a heartfelt thank you to Councilmember o.T. I do know that, you know, with great passion that he's represented. Public service, public safety service. And I think for that, he should be thanked. And and no one, you know, should she should hold that against him. But I do think, though, that the subject matter, because it's a large part of our city hall budget, I think because there will be a new council member, that she should take part in that discussion. And that's why I pulled this. In terms of the substance of the agreement, there are actually some very good things within the extension. For example, not doing the BRI. I'm not going to go into the details of what the BRI is. But it was this way in which the rate the percentage increases was was calculated. And when you go into the details of it, you know, it resulted in these. Year in, year out kind of increases several years ago that cumulatively, in my opinion, as one of five council members was a slightly excessive. So I'm glad to see that the Brea formula is being stripped out so that that's actually a positive when it comes to this extension discussion. And it is also a positive that that there is a 0% increase, which is a misnomer. 0% increase this coming year as one of the trade offs and a 2% in the following year. And that's a the 2% is a positive in relationship to the average that you heard earlier this evening. I think you heard an average of roughly 3.5% a year. You know, over time, cumulatively, that that added up. So what's so within the the the substance that's being discussed, there are actually some positives. But I think the larger issue, though, is that we should include the new incoming council member, Tricia Herrera Spencer, in this discussion, because this is a large part of City Hall and it will be so going forward beyond the December 2021 sunset into the end of 2023. I suspect so. Okay. So that's why I pulled it. Thank you, Councilmember. Dislike for that explanation, Councilmember Vela. I appreciate that. However, I also inherited a bunch of contracts that were voted on fairly, but within a few months of me coming into office. So I think that, you know, we've seen this at the federal level, you know, Obama having to wait essentially and people filibustering Supreme Court appointments. I think that that we can go back and forth on this. My concern is that there there is a scheduled increase that they are due to get under the existing contract next month, I believe. And so there is a timing aspect to this. And sometimes, you know, those for those reasons, it's important to to know whether or not that we're going to be paying out the 2% or not and merely holding it up so that a new council member can vote on it might not be the most prudent thing because of the existing requirements of the contract. So for that reason, I think that we should move forward tonight as planned because we're going to get that savings and we need to be able to factor that in when we go into the midyear. And I, I would like I think staff also would like to know what we're doing. I think it's with our noticing requirements and everything else, if we waited, it would it would really put it down to the wire. Thank you. Councilmember Avella, Councilmember de SAG. You are welcome to make a motion to. To carry out your desire. I don't know if. You're. As is your right. I'll I'll move that we postpone this item until the first meeting in January 2021. All right. We've had a motion by Councilmember Desai. Do we have a second? I'm not seeing a second. So that motion dies for lack of a second. Any further comments, questions on this item? Counsel, you're still on the consent calendar. I see you're next. I'd just like to make one quick comment that I'd be happy to move to the staff recommendation. And I make my quick comment. Okay, go ahead. Gladly. Because I have a great idea. So my comment is that that this process is not something that just popped up and is being rushed through. It's been a part of council conversations. I believe we had two council meetings over the over the one over the summer and one in the early fall as well. This is the culmination of long conversations and negotiations and the idea that we would stop so that that we could possibly change course after all those good faith negotiations is a little disconcerting to me. I also just wanted to say that nobody else has acknowledged it. I wanted to just call out that. I think that the attacks on the integrity of our city attorney, especially given how factual and inappropriate they were, were uncalled for. And that I have I work with a lot of city attorneys in my job, and I have worked with a number of them here in this in the city of Alameda as well. And I hold Mr. Shin very, very high regard, especially as it comes to ethics and following the law. And I think that it was just absolutely unconscionable to assume that he is somehow not care has turned a blind eye. The comments themselves, I think, really did call themselves out as being uninformed, and I will put that down to that. But I wanted to just offer my strong support for our city attorney because I think he does a fabulous job. So thank you for raising that point. I was taken aback by the speaker's suggestion that Mr. Shin doesn't care about conflict of interest. He follows the law. He's very knowledgeable about the law. Perhaps this council, moving forward in the next year, would like to entertain a conflict of interest, provision, ordinance, what have you. There's lots of lots of potential, I'm sure, but one of the things we talk about as a council are our responsibilities to the public when we're serving as council members and not to engage in ad hominem attacks on members of the public. There is not a handbook for the public, at least not not a written one. But I've often suggested that we would all do well to treat people the way we would like to be treated. And we can always elevate our discourse. And, you know, we don't all agree with each other, but for the most part, the council is able to communicate civilly with each other. And that's what I ask all of you, the five of us, that let's just keep it civil when we're talking. I know we get passionate and excited and let's set a good example for the public hopefully to follow. And I do want to thank all of our staff for their input. Mr. LEAVITT Great explanation. This party. Mr. Shen, I will tell you, I'm not fully in love with this proposal, but I do understand the merits. I'm going to support it. And so with that, I believe you by spirit. We're going to make the motion to adopt this resolution. Thank you. I'm approval of the staff recommendation and the resolution as written. Thank you. In a second. I'll second. All right. It's been moved by Vice-President Slade, seconded by Councilmember Ody. Any further discussions? Seeing. And may we have a roll call vote, please. I'm sober, Doug. No. Not quite. All righty, Odie. I vela i mayor as the guy that carries 41. Thank you, Madam Crooks. We have one more item that was pulled also by Councilor Woodside and that's item five. Oh, Madam. Quick, could you introduce that item, please? I know. Positive audience approving a Third Amendment to development agreement by and among the city of Alameda Partners and Alta Vista owner governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue to extend the completion date for the Common Extension improvements by one year and authorizing the city manager or designee to grant an additional one year extension without further action by the City Council Planning Board. And I think the city manager would like to recuse himself. Yes, yes. Yes, you're. Correct. He lives near the property. Okay. So we will let you disappear. And Councilmember De said, do you want staff reported? You said.