Introduction of Ordinance Approving a 33-Year Lease, with One 33-Year Option to Renew, and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with the Carnegie Innovation Hall, a California 501(c)3 Non-profit Organization, for 2264 Santa Clara Avenue (the Carnegie Building) and 1429 Oak Street (Foster House). [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Community Development 001)
Introduction of ordinance approving a 33 year lease with 133 year option to renew and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a lease with the Carnegie Innovation Hall, a California 501c3 nonprofit organization for 2264 Santa Clara Avenue, the Carnegie Building, and 1429 Oak Street, the foster house. This item requires four affirmative votes. All right. And okay. City manager. Mr. Levitt. I was going to say, I think the person who's representing the Carnegie group was trying to get your attention. Yes. Okay, wait. If you'd like to. Um, well, come up to the microphone. This is coming up to the microphone because we're being recorded and no one can hear you unless you speak to the microphone. I just wanted. To say that nearly everybody who. Put in a slip did not want to speak. They just wanted to. Just check off in favor of. But well. Here's the way it works. When we have that many speakers slips, it does limit people's times. Madam Clerk, do you suppose you could call the names and see if people really do want to speak? And that's what you want to let us know? Thank you. Yeah, it could be confusing, and I appreciate that. But we also have a rule about time of speakers. But let's see if we can figure out who wants to speak and who just wants to be counted as a supporter. Kim Hayes. You speak. So there's the speaker. Jay Marlowe. Motor City, and you want to speak. Okay. That's Jay Kravitz. Okay. Susan's very. You want to speak? Yes. Uh, Lelia Gibson, little. She here? I can't even have her speak. Okay. Pat Lambourne. Okay. Ariel. Very Fox Village. You need to speak. Bob Dibble. I'd like to speak. Okay. Andreas Kluger. Yes. You'd like to speak. Okay, so that gets us down to. One, two. Three, five wanting to speak, which is. Your time. This one up to 3 minutes, people. Yeah. Okay. That's how it works. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you for that clarification. We still will start out with the staff report. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Department. I am assistant community development director and Asset Management and I manage all of the city's real estate assets. And I had the great pleasure of working with Amanda Durkee in our department who led the, um, the process for the Carnegie. And I'm going to turn over the presentation to her. Thank you. Great picture of you on the cover of the Army, the Journal. Thank you. Good evening. So I'm here. Tonight to present the draft lease agreement for the Carnegie Building in the foster house. As most of you probably know, the Carnegie Building used to be the city of Alameda Main Library. It was funded by a grant from Andrew Carnegie and built in 1902 for a cost of just over $30,000. Together with the foster house, the Carnegie Building operated. As a public library until 1998, and it's been vacant since. Then. It's also important. To note that this is a historically important building for the city of Alameda, and it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. So in 2018, City Council. Approved an RFQ to find a new tenant for the Carnegie Building in the foster house. The goal was to find an end user who would provide cultural, economic and or educational benefits to the Alameda community, who would restore and maintain the historic character of the building, who could provide for public use as frequently as possible, and who could demonstrate the financial resources necessary and the experience required to complete the restoration and operate the facility. The building does need a great deal of work to be. Reopened to the public. It needs new electrical heating, lighting. Sprinkler systems, additional restrooms, more complete disabled access, among other improvements. In 27, the city commissioned a report on the restoration and preservation of the Carnegie Building that estimated these costs at $4.7 million. A 2018 update of of those numbers. Put it at around $6.6 million. So through the RFQ process, the Carnegie. Innovation Hall team was selected. As the successful proposal based on a number of factors. One was the strength of their team. Their team leader, Michael Sturtz, founded and spent 13 years as the executive director of The Crucible in Oakland, which is a nonprofit industrial arts center. He's also an Alameda resident. Christopher Bentley is also on the team and he has a tremendous amount of experience in the restoration and preservation of historic buildings. You may be familiar with his work. At the former. Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. Their proposal included the restoration and renovation of the Carnegie Building, with all work to be done, according to the Secretary of the Secretary of the Interior standards with oversight and approval from our historic advisory board. Once the building is restored, they propose to open the Carnegie Innovation Hall, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the arts, education and innovation. They would hold workshops and classes on a wide range of. Topics and have been holding. A series of community meetings to try to identify the areas of most interested Alameda community. The exact programing is still in development, but one idea they're working on is the creation of a state of the art video production facility that could be used for anything from public broadcasting to YouTube content generation. In order to help subsidize the nonprofit, the Carnegie. Innovation Hall. Team also plans to rent out different portions of the space for private. Events things like. School proms, birthday parties and weddings. So with that, I'd like to provide an overview. Of the major lease terms. The length of the term is 33 years, with 133 year option to extend rent would be abated for the first three years to cover the cost of the restoration. Starting in year nine, there would be a four part what we're calling a for profit special event for. So this would be mean that 2% of gross revenue from the for profit special events would come back to the city after the first three $300,000 earned in year 34, the rent would be 2% of gross revenue, less any income taxes paid by the tenant. The workforce requirements include payment of prevailing wage and the commitment to negotiate a labor peace agreement. So I should note here that yesterday we received. Alternative language regarding. Labor peace from the Carnegie Innovation. Hall team. I have copies of that here and I'll read it. Right now as well. I think that was in the letter the city manager provided. Is that correct? That's that's correct. Okay. So the language is the project sponsor, their contractor. The city and the union shall collaborate on a prevailing wage job. This is the alternative language provided by the Carnegie Innovation Hall team. They shall, in good faith, identify and competitively bid to union, nonunion and local prevailing wage trades to the greatest extent possible. So we also put in a number of community benefits requirements in order to make sure that this building remains community serving over the life of the lease. I won't read this entire block of text now, but they include the number of people served by the organization, the number of courses offered, hours of operation, discounted classes for Alameda residents, and discounted rentals for Alameda community based organizations. And finally, we included a set of reporting requirements that would include monthly reports on applications for discounted community use, annual check ins accompanied by a report on program activities and finances, as well as a course catalog. And every five years, the tenant would have to provide a plan summarizing its program goals for the next five years. This would also be an opportunity for the tenant and the city to work together to adjust the community benchmarks if needed, based on any changes to their organization's goals and mission. So the staff recommendation is that the Council introduce an ordinance to approve the lease. This would bring significant benefits to the Alameda community, including a major financial investment in the historic Carnegie Building, resulting in the restoration of the building. It would provide public access to a building that has. Been vacant for 20 years. It would provide Alameda residents with discounted access to educational and arts programing, and it would provide a new arts and event rental space to serve as an anchor to our as another anchor to our downtown. So with that, my presentation is concluded and I'm happy to take clarifying questions now or wait until public comment. Thank you, Mr. Ricky. Does anyone, any councilmembers have any clarifying questions about the staff report? Is Shall we launch into public comment hearing? And then let's kind of have a go. Thanks, Mr. Ricky. Okay. Madam Clerk. First is Kim Hayes, then Jay Marlowe, smarter than Susan Sperry? Is it two or 3 minutes? 3 minutes. And I'm just be sure to raise the microphone up to your height and be sure to kick into it. Okay. Okay. There we go. So I just wanted to. Convey my sense of excitement about the renovation of this building. And I hope. We all know we're talking about the building right across the street from city. Hall. It's just centrally located. Really does have an opportunity to become a jewel of this city. I've worked up until about 6. To 8 months ago. I've worked with Michael off and on on some writing projects. So I've had a chance to get a real close look at a similar. Historic renovation that he has done. And that's why I wanted to convey my excitement mostly as a community member rather than someone that's been working with him a. Little bit off and on the building that I've had. A chance to see that he's renovated. Is, I believe, Edwardian. And it's just it's absolutely spectacular. And so it's not just a renovation that you'll get, but it's something that will. Be true to historic, historically accurate, to incredible detail. But on top of it. He and I'm sure this is imbued in his shows and the. Work he does, the the crucible. Just a sense of magic. And it's you have to see it really. I wish there was a way for you to see just the rooms that he's done. It's it's the the incredible historical detail. But beyond. That. A flair and a. Creativity that really captures hearts. And so. I just feel like it would be a loss. To not, you know, have. It really be here. In the city. And I think that it would be just a beautiful, fabulous thing for everyone to enjoy and take advantage of. I have a minute left. I know I don't need to use it, but yeah, I just I just really wanted. To come here tonight and convey my own personal excitement as someone who's been out and about in Alameda for over ten years now. And love this city. And I just love to. See it become a part of the. City. Thank you. And you brought your baby, right? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next speaker. At Jay Malo. Smarter than Susan. Very than Bob Devoe. Met a mayor, city council members and staff. I am Marlo Schmitter, representing Carnegie Innovation. Hall as deputy. Director and speaking on behalf of Michael Sturtz and the team. While Michael is out of the country. We are here to ask you to approve the lease in the spirit of what we negotiated over the past. Six months with. No further. Changes. This has been a difficult. Road our team bid on. And won the RFQ. Based on a specific set of requirements and our unique ability to fulfill those requirements. To create a state of the Art Center for Innovation. That pairs educational programing and entrepreneurship with. The arts. Performance, music and technology. We've reimagined Alameda Historic Carnegie. Library as a place where all. Are welcome to dream, learn and grow by design. Our community events and dialog. Revealed deep community support for this vision. We believe in this project. However, the process undertaken. By the City Staff and City Council has made this challenging. The goalposts. Keep changing. As recently. As today, just before. This meeting on issues regarding prevailing wages in union, labor, insurance and more, we are a group of volunteers working for no pay. We have done everything the city. Has asked, including. Meeting at the last minute with a union representative. We do not understand why the city feels it necessary. To add a play to. The lease agreement, despite the fact. That we. Already committed to writing in writing. To a. Prevailing wage job. And that any general contractor we hire will, by necessity and in good faith. Competitively bid. To union, nonunion and local prevailing wage. Trades. We ask that. The City Council. Approve a. Lease today. And swiftly move to sign that lease and thus allow us to promptly. Get to work. Fundraising and enacting this worthwhile project for the community. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Susan's very involved about and Andrea's. Clearer. Good evening. Nice to see all of you. I want to express my joy in that we're having a renovation and creative project with the Carnegie and I have always respected Mr.. Carnegie and his. And I'm grateful and I'm sure other cities are grateful that he provided us with a lovely building. And I have been upset for years and have expressed this to you about it sitting there, empty, this beautiful building. Now, I have a personal experience with that library. I was I am a retired teacher, and I used that library to check out books to help my students, etc.. I was making a trip to Kenya to view, of course, the animals, and I thought I would take a songbook along. I always had as taught English as a second language through the song. So anyway, I went to the Carnegie and the Children's Library and I found a paperback songbook. So I took it to Africa, to Kenya, and we were in a big, weird little bus, open air bus, and a storm came and the bus flipped over. So that night we were we only had a few loaves of bread and no chance. One tent, one tent. There were 15 people. So we had to make do around the fire. So I got out my book and we started singing these songs, simple American folk songs. Anyway, then the Maasai came by. They heard our singing, the Maasai, the Native people, and they came and they were fascinated by our singing. And then they started to jump in. I said, la la, la, la. And they, you know, started to jump. That's their, you know, thing anyway. So I, I, there were people from all over the world on this trip, Dutch, English, Hong Kong, whatever. And one of the parents said to me they appreciated me singing because that relieves the tension of this possible fado. Thank you so much. Ms. Very. And our next speaker is. Wife. Found and Andrea's Kluger. Hello. My name is Bob Tebow. When I raised the microphone. Thank you for allowing me to speak here. I first wanted to say I really believe deeply in this project. As I mentioned in the last meeting, my daughter, I can remember taking her to the Carnegie Library and would love to see that that building come to life. As much as I believe in this project, I really believe in the people behind it. I think we really have a unique opportunity with this group of people, not only Michael Sturtz, as other speakers have talked about, but the group that he brings together. I worked with him on the founding of The Crucible many, many years ago, and to see the group that he brought together there that brings a passion, that brings creativity, that in with volunteer efforts can pull together such an incredible organization. I really, honestly believe that there is no other group of people who could make this happen. But what I really want to emphasize tonight is how challenging this is nonetheless. This is a group that has to raise $6 million. That is a tremendous amount of money. Once they've raised that money and can rehabilitate the building, they need to run an organization that needs that is able to support itself. And we all know how difficult it is to run an arts organization. So we really have an incredible group that I think is capable of doing that. But what's been troubling is the process and how we seem to have lost the cooperative spirit a bit in getting this this project done with some last minute costs added to the program that just are hard to bear. In particular, the play stood out. We did meet with Andreas Kluger, who we applaud for for bringing good jobs to the city of Alameda. We share many of the goals that he has. So we want to work with Mr. Kluger. But what we really need to be able to do is move forward with the project we have and to the volunteers and the funders behind us. Not so that there is an open door for added cost. So we're hoping that the city will approve the lease, but along with it, the amendment that eliminates the play that was added at the at the last minute to the lease. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker we identified. Next we here is Mr. Clifford One Oak. Thank you. Good evening. Council members and city staff names Andreas Cleaver, secretary treasurer of the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council. I was first made aware of this project over two weeks ago and actually immediately told city staff, We are open to sitting down with the organization to work out the issues regarding the use of union labor for this project. I in fact was contacted by Michael Sturtz about 11 days ago on the fourth. We had a brief conversation where I indicated to him, Let's sit down any time. Let's work out the issues. And finally, with the assistance of the city manager, we were able to sit down only on Friday, over a week later and watch with. I sat down with the board in a very constructive conversation around the project, and I indicated that we would be. Typically, when we have a private project like this, we do what we negotiate a separate agreement, which is an all union job. And I indicated that we would be more than willing to simply to allow the application of the city's existing project labor agreement, which allows for nonunion contractors to bid with their labor force on this project. They indicated a couple of years the areas they felt were challenging. We said we can accommodate specialty work. We can accommodate we can work out a good coordination with volunteer work. There was nothing there that seemed to be a challenge in working under the plate. It's a prevailing wage job. The cost is exactly the same. Prevailing wage and union rate is the same rate. They can use nonunion contractors. There's an issue with regards to use of local hire. I think that's something positive working with the Alameda Point Collaborative as part of the agreement. That's something that can be worked out. So I feel very positive coming out of there. I thought we had made a significant concession. You know, my concern and then we heard nothing back until late on Monday because I said, look, let's talk if there's issues, get a copy of the agreement. You can look over it. I never really got. There was some texting I did with one of the board members, but they never indicated there were any concerns and or problems. Again, spoke even today with the board member going over what some of the issues are. There is nothing in my and I've been doing this a long time, folks, dealing with lots of different owners, developers, contractors. There's nothing in my experience that we cannot work out in terms of the application of the citywide project labor agreement. Again, it is a prevailing wage job and my concern is and the language they presented is nothing. It's just simply it's a prevailing wage job. Sitting in good faith is what we're doing. If there is prevailing wage with no oversight, I have a real concern that there may not be actual preventing wages being paid on the job . And that, I think, is a real issue of concern. So, again, my recommendation is include the requirement. There are still there's a few issues that we can sit down and work out. By the time the city manager executes the agreement will have those worked out. Again, there's nothing there that I feel would be a problem that we couldn't accommodate. Thank you. Thank you. Again, that was the last of our public speakers on this item. Yes. Okay. Then we were going to close public comment and move to council discussion. Who would like to start? Well, then I'll speak at once. I'm just asking a. Question of the. Carnegie Project. Uh. Yeah. Yeah. And we have the ability. To be. You representative. Sure. Yeah. Hi. I. I'm just wondering if you can address the comments you just heard from Mr. Coover. That was. Is that your takeaway? Not the comments. About the comments about. The conversations that. We had? Yeah, absolutely. We thought they. Were. We think that we share a lot of values in common. As we wrote in the message to the city council, um. Sent on. Was that yesterday? Yes. Yeah. But he reflected that he felt that that the issues that were raised, that the answer was we can we can we can accommodate that as well. Were there additional issues that that that your project raised that you felt weren't addressed that required a difference in language? Our biggest challenge. Is that we are an all volunteer. Staff, and our. Ability. To fundraise for this project depends on. Our prospective. Philanthropic funders having confidence that this project will move forward. And there have been so many. Delays that we need to see action. We believe they need to see action. Promptly. For this to happen. Um, working out the details of a play. Um, I won't speak for Andrea's, but we. We are not. Familiar with the play. Other than just having received it and having. Scrambled to get the pro-bono. Legal. Counsel and. Other volunteer. Time that we needed to review it at the last minute. We feel like we don't know how. Long that. Will take to work out and that's where our concern lies. So that's why we'd like to. See the lease move ahead as amended. And, and. We're happy. To keep working together. But and. We think that our. Actions would be the same regardless of whether or not there. Is. A long, drawn out contract. We'd like to see everything move forward rapidly. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So I think that gives us some good information to tell somebody. I just have a couple of questions and maybe staff could answer. So there seems to be I think this is more for our staff. There's it's it's actually unusual that we have a back and forth like that. So we'll see if staff can handle it. So there seems to be some narrative out in the community about this process. I mean, could one of you or both of you kind of enlighten folks on, you know, how we actually go about property negotiations and, you know, who sets the terms and you know who has to sign off and that type of thing? Um, sure. And everyone, be sure to be close to your microphone so everyone can hear. I'll start and then you can tune in or Nat can tune in. So first of all, I just want to preface that this process started prior to not only my arrival, but also prior to this current council being on as a city council's. Two of the councilmembers sitting up here weren't city council members at the time that this process started. So I will go to sort of the end part of it and then go the way our ordinances and our charter work is that the city council is the final approval. City Council sets parameters, staff negotiates within those parameters, and that in this case it's a lease. So it actually takes a supermajority of the council, which is for council members. Um, I would say a nuance here different than some leases that the city does is that there was a RFQ or RFP process, which is a little unique . Sometimes we don't always do that with leases. In fact, this may be one of the only times it was done with a lease. I think it's because of this unique project to try to see what interest there was. We we I guess we have done some other RFQ since I've been here. There's been a couple other projects where we've done RFQ, but that's not always the norm. So that that's sort of the the straight process. There's a lot of unique things that we went through on this. But, um, in the end that that's the process and then that may want to add a little bit to it. So in the case of this release, we spent a good portion of time negotiating an alloy. And for that, for the community, it's a letter of intent. And it's really where you spell out the terms, the term of the turn in terms of the least, if there's read, what's going to be required in the least document. And the the applicant was focused on taking the alloy. I assigned the live from the city to start fundraising. And one of our meetings I said, you're going to fundraise on a non-binding letter of intent, don't you need a lease? And so they said, Yes, we need a lease. So then immediately we were working, we changed. We shift our focus to try to get to a lease document. So in that period of time, we were focused on 1 to 1 product and then we changed to go to another product and lease negotiations do take time because we can conceptualize in a line, but when the lawyers put the language in the document, then people really it's real and they really get an understanding of what's being required. So when we talk about length of time, it was mostly in trying to get the negotiations the right way. And then the other piece of the lease was we had proposed different sorts of sort of rent structures. We tried a traditional rent structure and because of the fundraising goals that didn't work, we tried a percentage rent structure. And because because of fundraising goals, it didn't work. So we, we were doing different iterations of what this deal would look like until we could get to the final product or the product that's in front of you tonight. Thank you. That's helpful. And I can't get it. Please. I had one other thing that I forgot too, which is important in the RF queue. It did talk about that. So for instance, one component that they probably create, some of the length of the negotiation was that it ever requested that the applicants or proposers. That they could agree that the city was open to a short term lease or a long term lease and then defined by parentheses under long term was, I believe, 50 to 66 years. I believe in this case it's a 66 year which is on the long end of that RFQ. And based on that, that's a lengthy commitment by the city. And so I think that does bring out other issues and other other issues, as well as probably the length and the time of the negotiation. Thank you. Mr. Levitt. Did you want to continue, Mr. Rudy? What did the city attorney want. To the attorney Mr. Chang, please. I'll be very brief. I just want to summarize that the council has the ultimate authority to enter into a lease, any lease, including this one. And the council gives direction to staff and will ultimately make the final call on important terms in the lease. And the ultimate outcome of the lease. And the RFQ, while it's an important selection process, does not bind the Council and any particular term or applicant, and the council retains ultimate discretion here. Thank you. And I just want to interject quickly that similar to the Carnegie Board and this council member is a group of volunteers working very hard for no pay and we take our work very seriously. So did you and continue, Mr. Rudy? Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think the point I was trying to make sure came out here is there was no agreement at X days ago or whatever. I mean, the agreement, if there is one, will take place when the five of us vote and if four of us agreed to do that. So I don't know where this misconception got out there, but it's out there. So I hope that's that's that changes. I want to ask a question about there was a item brought up in public comment about insurance. I mean, can you talk about the risk to the city? Because this is going to be city owned property, I mean, regardless of how long the lease is. Right. So I know there's a lot of talk about volunteers and, you know, volunteers don't have insurance. You know, if if I go in and volunteer and, you know, build something and blow something up, then, you know. May I come in here to the insurance? So you kind of understand. Well well, I can defer to you if you want to if you want to ask about it. Well, and I will just maybe streamline a little bit. I, I think this is a very exciting project, but we also have a fiduciary duty to our city. This is a significant asset, notwithstanding the fact that it's been sitting vacant. So we need to make sure that this is a solid business deal and we understand, you know, volunteer labor and all the creativity. My two issues are the labor issue because the next item we're going to hear, three items combined have to do with a housing crisis and people having a hard time affording to even live in the Bay Area, including our teachers, artists, creative types. And so we we do need to make sure that people are properly compensated with the appropriate agreements and the insurance when is paid for me and I do understand from staff communication that insurance and increasing insurance limits is something that staff has discussed from the beginning and was told that we just can't afford higher limits. But this is very concerning to me because a building and the work that's about to be undertaken, if, you know, hopefully we can come to agreement, does have certain risks involved. This is a beautiful, iconic building. It needs to be protected. So with that, if I stayed on the street, we can see the city attorney to to give his input. Sharon, I think you framed it quite well. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Sharon. And so. Mr. Levitt, either one. I mean. Anyone can jump out, although I will disclose it. The city attorney and I discussed the insurance issues just this afternoon and not for the first time. Yeah, well, I'll start and my colleagues can can chime in. So like many provisions of this lease, insurance is one provision that I think the city and the applicant has probably had many conversations about and perhaps we'll continue to have conversations about in some ways. The current proposed lease provides for an insurance that provides both property insurance. It also provides general liability insurance. I understand that there's been conversations about the coverage limits. The coverage limits in conversation had a wide range. I believe the current lease provides for 2 million in general liability. I believe the. Further provides a property insurance provision that does not that does not yet contain a particular limitation. And it also provides for a builders insurance, which contains a $1 million limitation. And and finally, I believe the current lease provision provides for the lessee paying the city and added insurance premiums on property insurance. And so these are the existing terms that. Were in and the change from year to year. The. That's right. And so certain provisions have a five year C five year market rate adjustment. It does not it is not insurance rates are not adjusted from year to year. And I don't believe every single provision has a a CPI adjustment, only one. And so I understand that staff and the applicant has had conversations about whether or not, for example, some of the coverages should be increase up to the improvement limit which the applicant is putting in 6 million. And whether or not 6 million is a more appropriate number for some of the provisions. And I further understand that there are some concerns with respect to costs associated with that. It's, of course, ultimately the council's decision to decide tonight how much insurance is appropriate for this building. Well, I think we would work with the city attorney's office, which includes the risk manager, and take direction from that. I don't I don't pretend to be an insurance expert, but I do think that we need to have adequate insurance. And I think the numbers I'm seeing are too low currently. I guess the fellow can't go. No council wrote. I'm sorry. Councilmember Desai I think. The follow up question to that would be, I mean, hypothetically, something happens. I mean, who pays out? And so that depends on what happens. So let's say there were I'm sorry. Let's say let's say there was a $6 million damage. Right. Let's say there is a fire during the construction phase. Worst case scenario, $6 million of improvements have been put in on a very last day. There is a fire and all of those improvements were lost under the current proposed lease. What would happen is that the applicants insurance would essentially cover the city's deductible. The city's insurance deductible is somewhere between 250000 to 1000000, depending upon the type of damage. And then after the million, the city's insurance carrier would kick in for the rest, which would obviously have some impact on the city's future insurance premiums. So it will be a it will be joint coverage at that point. But ultimately, our taxpayers would pay for our increased premiums. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Fine. So public comment is over. If there's an insurance expert who or. I trust our city attorney, I have one more clarifying question. Okay. Okay. I'm going to break press in a little, sir. Are you are you handling the I? No, no, no. I'm asking you a question. I'm asking you a question. Are you handling the insurance policies for this building? I didn't ask that question. I didn't ask you that. I asked you. May I ask the question and then I'll see if you can come up. Thanks. My turn. Are you handling the insurance policies? Securing insurance policies or discussing with the broker for this building? Come on up. Yeah. He's on the negotiations. And I'm sorry. Remind me your name again. My name is Bob Double. I'm sorry if I was rude there. I just wanted to make sure it was understood. It works best if you one person speaks at a time. And since I'm conducting the meeting, please listen to my question and then I'll call on you. You've got the floor now. Okay, I just I just wanted to say that in the RFQ, it had specific insurance requirements and we went out to procure exactly those requirements. When we looked at getting property insurance, we could not achieve a quote because no insurer wants to take a single historic building and provide a quote on that. What they will do is do a quote on a group of buildings. So we went back to the city and said, we're happy to reimburse the city for the property insurance, but that really needs to be secured by the city because it's just not possible on a single building versus a group of buildings. So if there is an. I mean, I just inject a question here. So you're happy to reimburse the city for the cost of the premium and the deductible. So that the deductible is covered by our liability insurance, which we have $2 million as required in the RFQ. And then the city's insurance would cover the greater loss. However, the cost of that insurance will be borne by the organization, not by the city taxpayers, as that is the key point I wanted to make. So so if a claim is made and the deductible first has to be met, your organization will cover that. Our insurers cover the deductible. The insurers for the city cover the larger claim, but we cover the premiums for that city insurance. And that really wasn't my question. My question was, if there's something if there's a casualty or a claim and our premiums go up, who pays for that increased premium? So that was the question. That is us. We are responsible to reimburse the city for the premiums for the property insurance, which we're unable to secure ourselves. For the increased premiums in the event that there is. And we pay that. I wouldn't say that in the least. But is that in the least? I think you're saying you're paying if if you're part of our pool and it costs us an extra, you know, let's just say $1,000 a month, you'll pay that. But in the event of a casualty or a claim, the thing burns down has to be rebuilt and our rates go up. You're not telling us you're going to pay for that increase. If that affects the whole city's rates? You are correct. We are simply covering our our share of that specific building as covered by the city's property insurance. So you are right. Mr. Shen. Okay, let's give us a minute to hear from the city attorney. Why don't you stay up here for just a minute? We might we might have another question. Mr. Chen. I think I think we are generally in agreement. The the place where we differ is that when there is a claim, our overall property portfolio's insurance rate goes up across the board. And that is where this lessee would not be obviously covering us for our over across the board increases that would that would happen if there was a fire that caused $6 million of damage. And that's the part that the taxpayers bear. Okay. Thank you. Do you have any suggestions for how to address that? I do not. There's no way. And you need to speak into the microphone so we can capture what you say. And the answer is no, you don't. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I think I have one more question. One more question. Okay. So on this this thing that we just got, this proposed language, I mean, it seems a little wishy washy to me. I mean, what what does that actually commit? Commit the project sponsors. May I ask a question of you? How would you make that language less wishy washy? Well, I think what we have in there now would be pretty good or using the city's language, which does provide a little more flexibility. But I guess my question is, what are they committing to by signing this? Anything? And who would like to take it? Turn it? They're drawing straws to see who has right to this. They work well together. One of you or both of you? Mr. Shay. It is my understanding that the commitment is for a prevailing wage. Only. Only a good faith identify and competitively bid. That's kind of that's not an ironclad. Commitment. Right. I mean, all you got to do is say, well, what we tried in good faith. The councilmember, they said, did you want to say something? Okay. Well. I'll just leave it at that. Okay. We heard you, Mr. Eddie. Who else would like to say something? Mr. Desai? Councilmember Desai. Oh, great. Well, thank you very much. I think we can all agree as a community, whether you're here tonight or watching on television or perhaps subsequently reading about this in the local newspapers, that we want to bring the Carnegie back. And I think we set up a process starting in 2018 to that end. And it seems as though the process was quite clear from the outset with regard to the RFQ that and that there has been some changes, unfortunately, or maybe some miscommunications that unfortunately hadn't been clarified until here we are in the fall of 2019. But when I look at the RFQ, you know, I look at a process that is clear in terms of what we expected of people who or entities that were going to bid on this project. We set out a we asked for seven elements within. With regard to the statement of qualifications that each proposal was supposed to speak to, they were supposed to, for example, speak to the project team, the concept of their proposed use and previous experience in doing a project like this. Item number four was What's their restoration plan? And number five was financial qualifications. Number six was operations plan, and number seven was community benefits. In addition to bringing this building to life, how would this benefit the community? So the request for qualifications or RFQ was pretty clear in terms of what we expected of people who were going to submit responses to the RFQ. More interestingly, the RFQ also identified a selection process, and through that process there were going to be two selection criteria, two rounds of selection criteria. So we weren't just going to look at one and we weren't just going to look at entities in one swoop. But we were going to take our time and to make sure that we do two levels of analysis. And when we in each of those rounds, we looked at, among other things, issues of financing, design and construction operations. So each of the rounds we were looking at, for example, financing. So it seems to me that we're suddenly dealing with these issues with regard to what's called the play in a substantive manner now that perhaps we could have dealt with, you know, from the outset in early 2018. Or perhaps we're dealing with issues with regard to insurance requirements that, as Mr. Devoe had indicated, was detailed discussed leading up to today. But. But there seems to be some new issues with regard. May I just I want to just correct a misstatement. There is no insurance requirement in the RFQ. Oh, I know, but but they had indicated that they would talk about. The statement and I typed was the RFQ had specific insurance requirements. I think there might be some confusion but I'm I'm just re read the RFQ. Yeah. But just just didn't want the public to be misled. They're not saying that. They they had testified as to discussing insurance issues. So. So it is what it is. So the the concerns. That I have I'm sorry. The city manager has his hand up. I'm going to defer to him, Mr. Leavitt. To add either clarity or confusion, I'm not sure yet. I we call them you guys. It was discussed in June and July. Insurance requirements. I have not found the provision in the RFQ that was referred to. So I'm like the mayor. I'm not sure where that's being referred to. If I'm missing something, you. Can in July. Pointed out. The staff level. At a staff level. Okay. And the play wasn't in the RFQ either, is that correct? Miss McIntyre, did you want to add something? I, I did this thing where I read in expressions and you get mildly horrified. So I just. Thought, sorry about that. The insurance provisions came up as part of the yellow I. That's the standard provision that we discussed. So that's where that came from. It was the play part of the RFQ itself, and. There was a play question during the RFQ process. And at the time the response was that there was not a play required for the project. But throughout the throughout the the RFQ, there is language that says that the council has the last say on what happens. And so, I mean, with every lease the council has the last say. I mean, you've edited leases from the dyas before. So this is not okay. I know. But but it was but it was expressed that a play was not. There was a question about that. Yes. And at the time the response was prevailing wage would be required. Because I believe that seems to be the the bugaboo here is that, you know, the the costs associated with play. And I don't think it's really the cost because it sounds as though that they're updating the prevailing wage. And so to the extent that they're opting the prevailing wage, whether it's union or nonunion workers, the cost more or less will be the same. It might be administrative. Issues that that people are concerned about with regard to. The play. I mean, is it is it true that it's like a 20 page document? Do we know how many pages that deal with? I'm not familiar with the PSA. Most of my projects have not yet have not had to be subject to them, which is changing. So, no, I don't know. And the city manager should feel free to add to that. Well, I'll. I'll wait. A while. I guess I'll just. Tell them. That. I'll just finish by saying. To me, it seems as though we had a process that was clear in what we as a city were looking for on behalf of the residents of Alameda who want to see the Carnegie restored. And we found a certain number of respondents from which one or two came to the top. And out of that, we selected this entity who appears to have a professional background in regards to putting together performing arts centers and as part of their team members professional backgrounds in terms of restoring buildings, perhaps of historic architectural character. To me, it just seems as though it's not just honoring the process, but honoring what the community and the residents expect of bringing back a jewel like the Carnegie in the best of all worlds. Let me just end up by saying, in the best of all worlds, we would have Andrew Carnegie coming back and writing a check for $10 million. But, you know, we all know that's not going to happen. And we all know that, you know, this is, you know, our best stab at bringing back the Carnegie. And if this nonprofit doesn't survive through the process or isn't given a chance, a fair chance to survive. The process. And what are the chances of anybody else surviving through the process? Because anybody else is going to have the same insurance questions and the same play questions. So, you know, I'm satisfied that the process has been served and the public has been served and that we have had adequate vetting and that we should start moving about and finally finalizing the contract and dotting our I's and crossing our t's. Thank you. Councilmember de so did Mr. 11 Administration want to add anything or should I go into the next house? Mr. Leavitt I guess I'll just add one thing, and I understand what Councilmember De Saag is saying, but I will say, and I totally respect where the applicant or the proposer is, I understand that they felt the process was in a certain way. I'm not sure. I again, I came in halfway through through the process. But I will say, when you look at the RFQ and you look at what happened again, I go to the years and term and said short term, which is in my mind usually five years or less or under our ordinances, three years or less to long term, which it defined in parentheses as 50 to 66, and they want the long term. So when you start talking about different conditions, a lot of things come in and out of those discussions. Now, maybe communication could have been better. I'm not going to disagree with that, but. But there's a variety of things. And again, we come back to it's ultimately the council's decision. And I will say on the labor peace part of this agreement, what the condition is, is that they would come back. With whatever their agreement is so they can come to an agreement before tonight. You gave latitude that they could come back with something that would satisfy the council a later date, as long as it's before construction. I understand that if I were on the U.S. side, I'd probably want certainty, a certain level of certainty. But that is a provision that was to try to create some flexibility in the provision. Councilmember Vela. Since we're and. Everyone's be close to your microphone. And I apologize, I was listening in. I have a four month old at home who is cutting his second tooth. So. But I was listening to the the comments and conversation. I do want to address this issue of labor peace. I think it's kind of ironic considering that Andrew Carnegie is also known for the homestead strike in which it was there was a bloody unrest that we're now having this conversation, that irony is not lost on me. So I don't necessarily wish that the man would come back. I think that that money was earned on the backs of workers who literally died. That said, I do think that there is an issue where, you know, saying that there's this issue of labor peace. It's not a 20 page document. It is literally Section 4.18 in the proposed lease. It is one paragraph long. And I would like to know, I guess, what is so objectionable to the statement that the parties agree that it is in the best interests of the project, that the construction work proceed in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner through the use of skilled workers to ensure that the work is done in a high quality manner. And specifically, Councilmember de SAG. We've had conversations. You know, I think generally as a council about how important some of these historic buildings are and how important it is to maintain them, and that the work be done in a manner that is is not going to risk the building. And I think some of the things that some of my colleagues up here have expressed have reflected around making sure that this jewel of the building is, in fact, preserved, and that we want to make sure that the work and the construction on it is done in a way to preserve the historical attributes of the building. And, you know, for the applicant, you know, this is going to go before our historic advisory board. This is going to go before our planning board. It's not just that, you know, here we're going to agree to this lease and then there's no more oversight. There's actually the secretary of the interior standards are going to apply. There's going to be a lot of things. And to that end, I think at least what I'm looking for in this language in section 4.1.8, is that we make sure that, again, that the work is done in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. I think essentially the proposed language, I think what rubs me wrong is that it essentially accepts the section 4.1.4 prevailing wages, which is actually the longer section, and then rejects this other section and specifically rejects language that I think is very important and I thought was something that the entire council had cared about. I also think that what we're looking for is that there are conversations around making sure that workers, again, Councilmember Desai said, well, if they're paying prevailing wage, I think the concern is worker misclassification, which can often happen where contractors are saying somebody is an apprentice when they're actually a journeyman. We want the most skilled workers working on this project. We want to make sure that the building does in fact remain intact. And I think on buildings such as the Carnegie that are this old, a lot of the improvements are going to be things that people don't necessarily see. Those are going to be the most costly improvements. Right. The retrofitting, things that don't necessarily have to do with the beautification of the building, but the functionality of it, making sure that the electrical is up to code and and done well, the foundation, things like that. So I think there is a lot of work being done here. I think that the term as drafted by the city would allow for pro-bono skilled labor to be to be, you know, something that could be negotiated over. But it's still you know, this is a seven city building. And so ultimately, it's our discretion whether or not to approve the lease. And I think that that was made clear in the RFQ. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Next wait. Minutes. So thank you very much, everybody, for coming out. I appreciate this. This, I think, has been a frustrating process for all of us. And I think it's unfortunate because I think this is a very exciting project and one that I've been excited to see move forward and whatnot. I you know, I'm going to say I think some mistakes were made on all sides. I think what we're seeing tonight is the result of what happens when you bring negotiations on the public and allow Facebook cop Facebook comments to start driving conversations. It puts people in different camps and I make my hope would be in the future that we can learn from this mistake and, you know, kind of have good faith negotiations together behind closed doors. And, you know, as as they're meant to be, so that we can come to agreement and and celebrate when we're when we're coming together on leases. That said, I'm not here to chastise one side or the other. It's clear that the Q&A said something about plays without ever checking in with the city council. And then when it finally did, I mean, what I will say in defense of my council colleagues, regardless of what side they are, we talked about this contract for the first time four weeks ago. We had no say so at the end of the day. Unfortunately, there were a lot of discussions and I can imagine that it felt very frustrating to feel like you were coming to the end for a you know, everybody will say hooray and we'll be there in two weeks in this thing will get signed. But unfortunately there were comments and whatnot. And, you know, we need to be better as a city in identifying the process and the timelines the RFQ said will be signed in June. It was reasonable to expect that you'd be signed in June. That may not have been a reasonable timeline, but it was a reasonable expectation. So I'm sorry on my behalf for that. I am heartened, regardless of the comments that are being set up here, that what I heard as one of the big sticking points around the project laborer projects, PSA play, I heard both sides stand up and basically agree that they've met, they've talked and they actually don't have any disagreements. They're concerned about the time it will take to sign that agreement. What that gives me hope is regardless of how we move forward tonight, whether we change language or whether we keep it, and I, I think that we probably don't have the votes to change it if there were people who wanted to. I think we can probably find both sides committed to making sure that we get a signed agreement that works for everybody really, really quickly. It doesn't have to be a really long process. And that's what I heard is the sticking point. So I just want to put that out there. I think if we all if this moves forward, I think if we all if we all commit to that and and I will ask or offer to help in any way I can we can get there again. I think, unfortunately, getting lost in this, we're in the weeds of of a contract. Thank you, sir. We're in the weeds of a contract, which is not always very fun. And yet here we are talking about a very exciting project that I think everybody up here will be excited to see happen. And my interest is figuring out a way to get us there as quickly as possible, because I would like to see this project open. But yeah, there may be some conversations that still need to happen. Okay, so I'm going to haven't had a chance. To comment so I can do those after. Yours. Yes, you can. Thank you. Okay. We're here now. We've spent a lot of time listening to this. Let's see if we can come to an agreement. This is what I'm hearing and I think what might be possible. But I haven't said anything, so don't assume what you're hearing. So. So if I could just finish my comments and I will see the floor to you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So I think it is important to pay prevailing wage. And I could not agree to a contract that doesn't that doesn't agree to that. I'm glad to hear you had a good conversation with Mr. Clever, and it doesn't surprise me. He's a very reasonable person to work with, and I know he's also met with our city manager. My question would be how to verify that prevailing wage is being paid. And for that I would defer to folks who are more experienced in that field. And the other thing is the insurance part is is important. And it wasn't in the RFQ, it was part of the negotiations. I wasn't in any of the negotiations. But the report back I heard was that it was something that was pushed back against and pushed back against. And that's certainly the prerogative of of the applicants. But as a councilmember, I want to know that we feel that we are adequately insured. So I would want those assurances there. I, I don't disagree that this whole process could have been done better, but I don't really see any a lot of benefit in sitting here and and, you know, regretting how things happened. I think this council is already in the process of changing some processes going forward. So we we avoid some of these situations because we do want to be fair to both sides. I mean, a lot of people have come together and put their time into this project, and we respect that. At the same time, as the city manager has said the least, that is being asked for and that we might agree to is 66 years altogether in the first 33 involve no payment of rent. I mean, admittedly, there's this $6 million that will be put into it, but there's there's still a lot of moving parts to be established. But so with that, I think that I would would like each side to recognize that we all have our valid concerns and those are mine. I want to see that prevailing wage is paid and I want to see that the insurance amounts are adequate. And beyond that, I think the council has spent a lot of time in close session with some of the conditions that will come up later at these various approvals for the use of the project. And as I think my council colleague, Councilmember Vela noted, there are still more approvals. I mean, the planning board, the historic advisory board probably in the reverse order, but and the Secretary of the Interior, whatever it is. But I would like to see if we could roll up our sleeves and figure out a way to move this forward instead of taking this can down the road. But let's see what we've got killed somebody. You want to tell me how you disagree with everything I just said? No, I just thought before you. Summarize what we say. It would be great to hear from all of us. But moving on. To something I said. Moving. Thinking for myself. Moving on. Your turn. So I too want this project. But I also want this project. So that means I want it to be successful. And I want it to be successful in the renovation. And I want it to be successful in the operation. And the operation is as an arts and cultural center, not as a wedding venue. And there was I think there was an article posted on the Internet on one of the blogs yesterday stating there are some concerns about that. And I just got a chance to look at the performance today. So really haven't had a chance to, like, dove into them. So, I mean, there are some concerns. So I'm going to take a little a little risk on that. But. I think people need to understand that, you know, one, as was clear, clearly pointed out, this is the body that makes the final decision. So it was a little bit disconcerting that there was a lot of noise on social media. So moving moving forward from that, there's this language about good faith that gives me a little heartburn. And one of it one of the things I have heartburn over is we're supposed to have a good faith negotiating process on this lease. And yet a couple of weeks ago, we started getting bombarded by people coming here and we couldn't speak about it. And there was falsehoods and and things put on the Internet and on Facebook and people getting riled up. And there was demonstrations. Everyone has a right to speak. But, you know, we're trying to enter in a relationship with someone that we trust with one of our jewels and jewels of our community. And we want to make sure as a council that we trust that person to fulfill the vision that we all have and that the community all has. And that was all shared. And when we're supposed to be bargaining in good faith and negotiating in good faith, and then one side decides to negotiate via Facebook, then to me that's not good faith. So and then I see this again. I look at good faith, and I got a chance to share and it's public information if anyone wants it. The cost estimate on the renovation where the $6.4 million came from and it came from a contractor, I think the name is Body Construction and they have labor claims against them. So when I see a language that says all we're going to do is good faith, yet their estimate and maybe they never go with that person, that's fine. But you know, the person that's giving them that number that we're supposed to rely on, you know, it was already being accused. And I understand if you're accused, you're not guilty of anything. But they've already been accused of violating labor laws. So I will say to that point, though, the best way to ensure compliance with prevailing wage standards is to have a play. So I think it's kind of a win win for everybody. You know, two quick final points. I mean, I'm not going to get into like what was said and what meeting and what was in the RFQ and so on. But we do have a citywide play. So I think going forward, staff should put that in RFQ and should understand that when there's Q&A sessions, that it's not that whether it applies or not applies that we have one as a city for our public projects. And it could or could not be subject based on the discretion of the council. So that's my suggestion there. I mean, the deadline for coming to an agreement is when construction begins. And that's quite a long time, if I understand correctly. Right. So it's we're not saying that you have to do this in a week or two weeks or even a month. So I think there's enough flexibility in that paragraph as it's written for 18 or even adopting the city, the city place tender, which is even more, I guess I would say liberal or loose that the parties should be able to do this. But I'd like to see this done. We just opened the high school, which by the way, was also done under a play. And it is beautiful and it's amazing. And I think we deserve to give our community another amazing project right next to it. And I hope this group can do it. I would be willing to vote for this lease as it is, make no changes as a gesture of trust to them. But I got to say, you know, so far I have a little pause, but I'm going to take a little risk. Thank you, Councilmember J. So I wanted to say something. Well, I just wanted to quickly. Post your mike, please. Yeah, I just wanted to quickly say that, you know, whatever the outcome of tonight, I really hope that the proponents of the Carnegie Innovation Hall continue to stay the course and try to to work things out with with all the different stakeholders that have been mentioned tonight. So I know it's kind of difficult right now, but I hope you really stay the course, whatever the outcome of tonight's decision. Okay, Councilmember Vella. So I think that I'm I'm in support of the vision of this project. I'm in support of what I think our hopes, all of our hopes collectively are for it. I do think that I did initially have a lot of concerns. I still do have concerns of how financially it's going to work out in the long term, especially relative to it essentially becoming a glorified event center. I think that that is a concern. I think that there's going to be but I think it's addressed in the lease. That's that as proposed. I think staff did a really good job around kind of. Shoring that up. And it's not to say that I don't I don't think that the project proponents were intending on that. I just. Who knows how things are going to be in ten or 20 years? As the city manager mentioned, this is a back and forth. And one of the things that I personally was concerned about was the duration of the lease. I also just don't I normally don't like long options. I think if we're going to give a big option to me, at least for for, you know, that's giving a lot of value to the tenant and we're the landlord. And so giving a lease option that's three years, in my opinion, is, is a big give. And I understand why the applicant wants that. I'd be amenable to it, but there's something that I want in return and that has to do with the language in section 414 and 418 . And so, you know, to me, that's the trade off. I also think that, you know, I don't want a a project where, you know, somebody gets injured on the job or that we have people that are working on this historic building that aren't, you know, qualified to do it and something happens. And I think that that goes to to the insurance question. So I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to do that. We approve the lease as written and that. Madam Mary, thank you. Your concerns about the insurance are are valid. I think that that comes at a substantial cost to taxpayers. And so I'd be amenable to that additional direction if you would like. What I would what I would, I guess, add as a friendly amendment is that I would ask the staff to work with the Carnegie folks to just make sure that the concerns that I think almost all of us expressed. For insurance protection and protection of the city are met. Um, I don't think we need to micromanage that and. Okay. So do you. Do we have, um. Madam second. Let's see. I okay. So, yeah, that's your position. Even Mr. Zinn. Yes. On the insurance provision, given that the council's direction appears to be relatively broad, what the Council be amenable to, to approving with modifications to the insurance provision as to its adequacy as ultimately approved by the city manager. Yes. Yes. Second report. I would second. That. Good. Yeah. Okay. So you would second the motion. With your. Amendment as as restated by the city attorney. Okay, so we have a motion second and discussion. Councilmember Desai. Yeah. Madumere I would like to honor the request made by the proponents by replacing the language that's in there right now with regard to the play with the language that was provided with us tonight through this handout. That's a that's the residents had requested that. And I believe that the professional team is substantial and I'm confident that they can do the job. Are you offering a motion? I am. Is there a second? Hearing, then the motion fails for lack of a second. So we have a motion on the table discussion. Vice Mayor Knox. Thank you. I'll be really brief. I'll be voting for this motion. I think it's an exciting motion. Again, I just want to go back to what I heard was the two parties that need to have a discussion saying that they're not that far apart. Anything we can do, I'm going to just you know, and I know you have concerns and you're driven. So I'm looking over the building trades, whatever we can do to sit down and, you know, I know you'll work in good faith. I bumped into Mr. Cleaver at a at a after one of our meetings when it became when it came out into the open that this was one of the issues. And so we discussed it briefly. And my takeaway, I came back and called the city manager and I said, I don't think this is going to be a problem. I think they really do want. He lives in town. I think he understands the project. I think they are going to sit down and work and work really hard. And so whatever you can do to commit to helping them get to, you know, I know we're giving them to ten construction hours. I hear your concerns about the fact of wanting and wanting certainty for your for your funders. So whatever we can do to knock something out really, really quickly so that if you have problems, you can come back and talk to the city manager quickly as well anyway. And I'm sure you have partners up here on the dais who would be willing to help in that way as well. I think probably we are giving that one to staff to work on, but I know they've been working hard on it already. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. I abstained. Okay. So the motion passes for two one. So. Well, then. Thank you, everyone. Okay with that, I'm going to take a five minute break before we move on to our next three combined items. Thank you. Manager. What do we do with the city manager? I'm to make him. Make the motion to separate them. In a minute. Let's get back to. Where my head. Is. Cake. Okay. For the third time, would everyone please take their seats? That means everyone, please take your seats. Thank you. Okay. We are going to resume. I've had a couple of requests for further agenda changes, counsel. So when I have counsel's attention, I'll resume. Okay. My requests were we have an item that is currently last on the agenda. It's six G and authorization of a five year agreement with Ranger Pipeline for the cyclic cyclic sewer replacement project. And that was just a concerned calendar item that got moved to regular agenda because of the price. But we have a request to just let it be heard now quickly, because we don't think it's very long. That's one request. Hold that in mind. And then the other was Miss Potter. Debbie Potter says that she believes it would. Be. A little smoother if we combined to the two housing authority related items, which is six D and nine A. But to hear the the of 60. No, no we know this is Debbie is saying rather than have all three of them heard together the one that has to do with the rent ordinance just changing the temporary and