Adoption of a Resolution Submitting to the Voters an Ordinance Entitled “McKay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure” at the Special Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, April 9, 2019; and Consider Authoring a Direct and Possible Rebuttal Argument. (City Manager 2100)
An American to ask whether or not we could combine this with 60. I think that the discussion will go back and forth between the two anyway, but facilitate a better conversation. City Attorney. Is that okay with you? Sure. Do you want to combine them? You can. Okay. So just for the public's no knowledge, we are. Do the rest of the rest of the council agree with that? It's fine. Okay. So just in case anybody who's out there wants to comment on either item. 60. Or 66 is submitting a resolution, the McKay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure to the voters and six e is a resolution to submit an ordinance, a competing ordinance, if you will, entitled the Carrying Alameda Act that proposes that voters confirm what the city already did as far as approving this use at this location. So anyone who wants to speak out on 60 or 60, please fill out a speaker slip. Douglas. Okay. Okay. All right. So. Um, city. Do you want to just walk us through? Sure. So, basically six d the fiscal responsibility measure is similar to what was done with the alameda beltline. And as the city attorney explained earlier, it compels the attorney to file that suit to make the determination about if it's taking and then figure out a way to pay for it prior to implementation of the initiative. And so this is supplemental to just try and find the funding stream that is going to be needed if taking the next one is the project that was approved by the Council on December 4th and the reasoning that went with that for the facility and it places that as a competing measure. And so similar to what happened in 2012 with the rent or 2014 with the rent ordinance that the renters had brought forward, the city put its own rent law that it had adopted to allow the voters to kind of choose between the two. So it would be similar to that. And whichever of if both passed, whichever of the two receive the higher vote would go into effect. And I think basically you have the same choices here. You've got to look at the ballot question and then you've got to talk about authoring the argument. Okay. Any clarifying questions for our city? SO, Mr.. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Actually, a question of the city clerk. So. This open space, fiscal responsibility, the six D item. I mean, can we just do that on our own if it passes? Or do we need voter approval to direct the city attorney as this describes? Well, well. Well, what would happen is if the voters approved this particular measure, then as part of that, then the the voters essentially would have said, city attorney, go file an action to find out whether or not there was a take in and what the value is. Right. But my question was, do do we need that voter approval in order to make that direction? I mean, hypothetically, if it passes, could this council give the same direction after the election is certified? Yes. I mean, you could do that without having it. It's simply just I think the staff sense of it was that it sort of complemented what was being there in front of the voters. So they knew the voters would know that if they if they passed the other measure, there was a mechanism in place to determine what the value or if the owner would have to be compensated. Without that, they might then they may have a different feeling about whether or not they should approve or not that measure. Okay. I mean, the other option is that that is fleshed out during the campaign and the ballot arguments and so on. I think one thing that might be in your favor is just if you take this to the voters in you could say the voters approved this this funding requirement, a mechanism that might be stronger than just the council doing it. I mean, I think that was what was done with the ballot line in order to, you know, let the voters make the full disclosure. I. That's a good point, that courts if it were challenged in terms of this process, the court would presumably give a little greater weight to what the voters approved than what maybe a council had done. Thank you. Okay. So Councilmember Vela so. Just to be clear. And there were a couple couple questions that were were asked, but. What we would be authorized or what we would be putting forward is just that there be some sort of court action. Correct. The voters authorize a future election, essentially, that that we would be authorizing putting a ballot initiative forward potentially for funding . Right. That's part of this. Where you would be you would be putting forth. If the voters were to approve this, then we would move ahead to approve the act. Approve the previous agenda item that we just discussed. You know, the voters say the voters approved that. Yes. And then they also approved this in conjunction with it. Then there would be a process to move ahead to find out if there was if there was a taking and if there was a taking the value. And then also then there would be a a process that would have to be determined in terms of coming up with a funding source and how that would be. It would depend on if there was going to be a bond measure, then obviously that would take some council action to put that on the ballot, etc.. My concern is we just heard about all the issues with WW and everything else that if what we're thinking about is potentially going the route of requiring some sort of bond measure to fund it, that we say the words bond measure, why would we not say that? Why wouldn't we put that specifically in here? Well, it wouldn't because you could fund it from a source other than bond measure. In other words, you could use general fund money or development impact fees or so. So here's my concern with that. What we just heard was essentially that we, the voters voted on WW and we the voters thought that it was going to be spent on this and that. And I guess my I understand that it leaves it open, but I think rather than leaving it open, at least on my end, I would I would. My question is why it is impossible impossible to be as clear as possible. So could we, for instance, just say that what would be required is going to court? Figure out if it's a taking and then going through this bond process, basically. Could we narrow it so that it isn't coming from general funds or it isn't coming from other other sources? So that the the only source of funds would be through a bond measure. Correct. You could do that. The concern that I think that I would have is that if that bond measure wasn't passed and it would it would generally take a two thirds vote to do that, then that sort of leaves the funding up in the air. And the question is, have you limited yourself too much in terms of where that funding source should come from? And would that would that make the complementary measure subject to an additional legal challenge? Because there wasn't. There was such just one source of funding at that funding was contingent on the voters. It becomes somewhat problematic in terms of knowing that there's going to be a funding source. If you leave yourself some flexibility and options. It's certainly going to the voters would probably be the preferred method. But there might be other options available too. And I don't know that you'd want to necessarily limit yourself by this measure to only one source of funding. Mr. Asked The question that I would ask is if we were to approve this proposed ballot measure and limit the funding source only to a bond or whatever, and it didn't pass, would we be placing the city in legal jeopardy if we were faced with a taking or some other action? Well, I think that would that would be a concern is that you have now sort of put yourself into a box and then that box wasn't opened. Then what's going to happen next? You know, the property owners are going to say general funds have to be used instead of some other source. So that would be my concern of limiting yourself to one funding source in the measure. So. Councilman Brody. Thanks. But this is just really related to possible compensation to the owner. It's not, you know. We wouldn't be forced to spend money to turn it into a park or maintain it or do whatever. Correct. This is simply the to purchase the property. Assuming there was a taking the whole issue about the development of it in in some fashion is a whole separate issue. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? We do have a couple of public speakers, Doug Biggs. Thank you very much. First off, thank you for combining the two items so that you don't have to hear from me twice more tonight. Appreciate that. And just a follow up to something Councilmember Desai said. I will not Catsimatidis I did not take me up on my offer to meet with him prior to this meeting so I could fill him in on the on the history of this project. Also, probably didn't take a look at the lease that was enclosed in the documentation with this, which very clearly lays out the penalties we have to pay if this project goes beyond two years. Yes. Delaying this is going to cost us. Very clearly it's going to cost us. With regard to the ballot measures, the additional ballot measures, I will say in our perception, I think 60 or the cost impact study is or cost protection initiative is flawed. I think you run the risk of if it doesn't pass, then and as you said, if it does pass, then that'll give more credence to going for a to a lawsuit. But if it doesn't pass, it's going to give less credence to a lawsuit and perhaps impact your ability to do that. Determined if there's a taking. I think it's confusing to voters. I mean, I think the difference between this and Jean Sweeney is Jean Sweeney. That was a grassroots effort that was highly popular. This is paid for signatures on an initiative that doesn't have the grassroots strength, doesn't have any of the environmental groups supporting it. It's not something the community wants. So clearly, they're not going to vote for them to pay for it themselves. Also, in addition to this, I do think this is clearly this is not about parks. We all know that this is about homeless. And I think it's time that this community make an affirmation in favor of serving the homeless. And that's why I support the Carrying Alameda Act as the companion ordinance in this. Thank you. And our next speaker is Jeffrey RIDDIFORD. Madam Mayor, council people and everyone here I live on. My name is Geoffrey Bernard. I live on Central Avenue and I look right down Mackay Avenue. I have a Bay View somewhat. The concerns of the of the of the two people. In opposition to the. Seniors. Project. They seemed possible, but not probable. They talk about the the ambulance, you know, activity and and just total chaos is the impression that I got. What I understand about the project is that it is a it's a support based project to offer people who are on the edge of being possibly homeless . So to help them stay housed financially. Financial help and mental help. Physical help and access to. Just resources that just keep people on track, so to speak, in life. I went to the Alameda Caring Act morgue recently and I pointed out one of the five resource reports that I think was from the government woman And then I looked at another one that was 99 pages. So I scrolled and scroll and scroll and came up with a floor plan. I mean, a plan of the of 3.65 acre lot. It showed that one of the major buildings right next to Neptune Gardens was going to be demolished and then built into some medical help facility. And then the three of the buildings, which are just about the right size to subdivide into. Appropriate sized housing for older people and. And it just seems like a it seems like a no brainer. You've got a whole bunch of people out here that have a program. They've they've got a limited amount of commission. They've got funding. If people are willing to help and I think the island as a whole is willing to help the not in my backyard influence I find the most disappointing. Because. You that that feeling. Shows that people don't care about other people. And if more people cared about other people, things would be a whole lot better. Thank you for my time. Thank you. Okay. So. I think it's worth having the discussion of not only what should be in a fiscal responsibility measure, but whether we do indeed want to put that on the ballot. Does anyone want to weigh in one way or the other? Councilmember Vela I have concerns about putting. I found the wording to be. Difficult to follow. I think as a concept, I think it's very nuanced and I have concerns about putting it on the ballot because I think it detracts from the larger question at hand, which is, you know, which is the question that we're going to be working on revising for the for the other measures. So I also think that since we do have the ability to give the direction to our legal counsel to to do just this. My question is, can we give that direction now? Like, could we could we say in the instance that that other measure passes and that way it's been notice to the public, we can refer to it in our ballot arguments, we can refer to it in campaign material, and we can say that that this is the process that will be followed based off of council ordinance. So I hesitate to add things to the ballot that we can do through an act of council direction. And I think that this is one of those times that I think the council can can make that informed decision and give that direction, and we can give that notice to voters in a timely fashion. Thank you. Anyone want to weigh in on that? I like that idea. I mean, I asked the question but didn't think about doing it like preemptively. So I'd be supportive of that. But I don't I don't really want to put this fiscal responsibility measure on the ballot. Anyone else? Vice Mayor. Councilmember. They saw. For me, I think I would lean on just not putting this on the ballot. And I guess I would like to hear a little bit more about what we gain by giving that direction tonight. I think it almost opens up the well, we can vote for it. They'll figure it out in court later. Kind of argument. I would personally, if I had my druthers, I think I put the carrying Alameda act on there and I think it's I'm comfortable that our coverage, the conversation our community should have is do we want to take care of the people we say we want to take care of? Or do we want to pretend we're going to knock down 11 buildings and open space in a place in a functioning commercial, federal commercial area for for many, many years? I think in that I think that's the cleanest to use. Councilmember de sucks up really the most straightforward conversation we can have with the community. We can give that direction, but I'm open to it. I just don't quite understand why we would get what we gain by getting that giving that direction now. Thank you. Councilmember Desai, any thoughts? No. Since I don't support a for a special election, I think it's for for me, the issues. So you're neutral on this or. Oh, well, I won't put words in your mouth. Okay. No. Okay. No. So I. You so I, you know, in thinking this over, I know it's. Well, we're we're doing a special election, so these would be all the measures there are. But I still do think that giving voters three measures to consider could be complicated and could be confusing. And I do I'm very much supportive of the Kerry Alameda Act language. And I think to the vice mayor's point that we we do want to take it to the voters, to the community to say, you know, here's the problem we face. Do you want to help solve it or not? So, um, I would, I would be supportive of, of again, I thought Councilmember Vella made a very good point that, um, she's hesitant to go to the voters with an action that the council could approve or could, could give direction to. So I think in this case, less is more. And we can be simple and straightforward with the measures we do put on the ballot. But that's assuming that someone wants to make a motion not to go forward with the, uh, fiscal responsibility measure. I do have a question. I. Councilmember De Saag had said that since he's not supportive of the April special election. But I think whether or not the special election is in April or it's a question put in November, we still have to decide as a council. So I don't think that I do think whether we take that vote tonight or at another time. I would like to hear from all my colleagues about their thoughts on potentially how we would go about funding this. So perhaps tonight isn't the night for that question. But I would I would like to hear from everybody on that, because it's a concern that I have. Relative to the carrying Alameda language. I guess my question is, are aren't these questions that we could tie in to a valid argument specific to the first measure that that we voted to put on the April 9th, 2019 special election? And because I think they go hand in hand again, I worry about confusing voters. And are we. You know, we're asking them a negative and one and then a positive in the other. And I, I just worry about that. So to continue the discussion, my feeling about that is a good question. I think that it's important to let the voters know the action that the city council has already approved and and to spell it out. I think that having the two measures side by side gives a clearer choice that I think maybe not all voters get all the way down to the ballot arguments as hard as we're going to work on it and going to be standing. But the but they will presumably read the measures before them. And I, I, I like the way that it was worded and spelled out because I thought the language told the story. That's not to say that we can't, you know, do a little wordsmithing if we feel it's necessary. But I'm inclined to. Keep both on the ballot. That's my opinion. Those are your thoughts. So all three. Of the I, I did say earlier and that the fiscal responsibility measure, I think could add confusion. But I like the the the match, you know, the two. So let me try. Emotions, if it gets anywhere. If it doesn't, we'll do something else. So I would vote to not a motion that we don't put the McKay Avenue open space fiscal responsibility measure on the ballot and that we instead direct the city attorney as the. As the wording of that proposed ballot initiative directs. So if it passes, then we would authorize the city attorney to do that same thing that the ballot initiative would. Okay? Sure. Are we? You can do something separate on the carry on. Me too. I didn't even speak on that one yet, so. Oh, yes. Okay. So. So we have a motion second. I'll second it. But I do want to hear from the city attorney. As I understood the motion. The motion is not to put on the. You get what is called the other. The other, the. Second. Resolution. That the council would give direction or the council's direction would be as part of that motion that if the citizens initiative passes, then the city attorney's is to is to file the action in court. Within a six month period to determine whether or not there was a taking and to determine the value, etc., as the bee and the other resolution would have provided. That's the gist of what the Council member already said. And I think the reason I made that motion. Yes, correct. The reason I made that motion because I think it would give the writers of the ballot argument, you know, another possible angle to approach it with if they chose to. And then we don't really have done it because that's within our purview. So it didn't seem to me worth, you know, spending that time and possibly confusion, you know, for something that we have within our authority. I'm vice mayor. That's what it's a again, I'm I'm unclear why we are what we think we're getting from this. I understand the were giving this direction but to me the the the the. Proposed ballot language was the the importance of the fiscal responsibility ballot language. Was that it that the voters would say don't enacted until the money is found? Right. And so the direction was given in order to figure out how much money it was so that there would be. You know, is it a taking and how much is it going to cost us before that kicks in? To me, giving this direction now just feels like we're giving direction for some work. But. I'm not quite sure what we're getting and why we're making it now rather than in four months. Five months, once we know the. The results of the. So to respond to your question, also good question, by the way, people good discussions tonight. I, I don't think they're mutually exclusive propositions that we can give direction to the city attorney now and perhaps also fold in information about the costs, in argument, in opposition. To the to the measure or, you know, somewhere in what we're still going to draft. So I am sure it's because I'm jetlagged. I'm not I just am not understanding maybe what is being proposed. It sounds like we're basically saying if this thing passes, the city attorney should then go to court and figure out how much it's going to cost us. And are we, you know, in our we liable in terms of taking. Councilmember Bill, I. Think my concern would just be it would be another item that we have to then agenda is have another set of discussions on post election, which I do think again one of the questions before voters that's going to be discussed is where is the money going to be coming from? And that's the question that has come up more than once. And so, you know, I think it's prudent to say, look, we counsel. Would like to know one if this is taken. And two, you know. If it is a taking, what what are the costs going to be? And then how are we going to go about funding those costs? I think it just outlines for the public what the process would be, which sounds like that would be the process that we would follow anyways. Passes, I guess my whole thing is why put off the inevitable when we look right now? Because it's already agenda. And while I appreciate that something similar to what is proposed in item six D was done with the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. I think there are also some distinguishing characteristics or not. They are not the same situations. Okay. So I do believe we have emotion and. It's someone I. Suck. And I'm happy to hear more from the vice mayor about the concerns or perhaps the city attorney could weigh in about what we would potentially lose or gain from from giving that direction tonight. I just my concern is if we've already agenda is that why not give the direction it then gives that that power to you to take that action otherwise have to agenda. In the event that that measure passes. This is actually an interesting question. Has that question been agenda? What was agenda ized was should we ask the voters to give us and I'm not trying to be problematic often you said that I'm not sure that we did. Agenda is giving me. Direction and so maybe some legal action. We can't vote on that tonight. Or maybe there's a special meeting on January ten. Just quickly. Please. What I recall of the Jean Sweeney initiative was that Jean Sweeney, her great credit ad, obviously found that pass that large parcel and then went about the process of declaring it an open space area and out of an abundance of caution, what the city council had done. I believe this is what happened was the city council said that the Jean Sweeney initiative would not be enacted until and unless funding revenue sources were found. I believe that's that's how it went. So this whole discussion about taking or not then becomes. Well. And and I would just add that that is one of the features that distinguishes this item from from Jeanne Sweeney. Unless. Yeah, exactly. Unless the railroad wanted to make a ticking clock, but that wasn't what. It was about doing. Yeah, but they lost. But they. Lost. They lost, right. Because because, you know. Before they caught. Contract. So but I do think that the the noticing issue is a valid one. So it's a valid point. I mean, I think I think one could reasonably argue that it's within the ambit of of the of the measure. And certainly the idea that the city attorney would be given direction to do something. But you're right, there's a distinction between the voters doing it and the council doing it. And in light of the fact you're going to come back on the 10th anyway, why don't we just play it safe and just sort of add that as a separate agenda item? You could take action tonight not to put the Fiscal Responsibility Act, if that's the council direction, but we will defer the issue about giving direction to the city attorney. And then the other measure passes and to the 10th. And that way you have more time to think about whether the vice mayor's issues are should be followed or or not. Okay. QUESTION Councilmember Thank. You, Madam Chair. I mean, I'm okay with that, but I'm still I mean, I don't see how we resolve the agenda using notice thing by just kicking it to the 11th or the 10th or whatever it is. Well, I think you were talking about adding a brand new agenda item to a continued meeting, which has already been noticed. So. Well, we'll, we'll, we'll put it on as a special, a special meeting item. On the 15th. Oh, on the 10th. Oh, okay. All right. That's okay. We will just do that. I mean, if we're if that's our concern, then we need to make sure we. Do it right. We do it right and not, you know, like. Try to squeeze around all into a square peg or something. Councilmember Square peg. Whatever we go. Through, through the chair, if I could suggest to the maker of the motion a possible amendment, which would be to actually move this item to the 15th, because I think that that would allow it to actually be. Properly agenda. I feel better with that. I would feel more comfortable. All right, so I'll revise the motion to continue. I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. I didn't call on. They call it in, as they call it, revise the motion to not put it on the ballot. And then agenda is actually giving this direction to the city attorney at the special meeting on the fifth. Which would be noticed with. 1715 making it. The 15th. So does that work? Okay. It's again. It's past the deadline to call the election, but you're not calling an election. So since you're giving direction, it doesn't have to be done by chance. Right. That wasn't my question. It's that the agenda goes out tomorrow. Will you be meeting? Could be next Tuesday with seven. So instead of going out tomorrow for the regular meeting 12 days in advance, it would go out in a special meeting for that same date of 15 foot, which is seven days advance. Yes. I mean, it doesn't it doesn't. I'm sorry. It doesn't solve the problem. I notice it. But if everyone feels more comfortable, I'll make that motion. Second. Okay. So. So we have the motion to continue this item. Yes. To a special meeting on January 15th. It's been moved and seconded all in. I opposed. Abstain. All right. So we have four yes votes. One abstention. The motion passes. Now. We still need to. Resolves this carrying Alameda act. And so we have numerous speakers. Correct? No more. OC. Council members. What are your thoughts? I don't have much more to add on this one. I know that there were some comments, but just since I think technically we're supposed to make motions and then discuss them, I would propose a motion to to put on the ballot the Korean Alameda Act. And as we did with the first item, to ask the subcommittee if they are willing to look at the language to make sure that that and bring that back to our special meeting on the 10th floor for final approval. Yes. ACCOMANDO We just got rid of one. Ballot and and also to craft the the arguments. For people, I'm sorry. And also to craft the arguments for that particular initiative. And I'm going to look to the city attorney's office to help us with some initial framework that we can work from. Correct some. For the question could live the legal requirements of the ballot question. The advice on that. It's similar to what we did on the sales tax measure is what I'm what I'm suggesting with that. Point of clarification. So the. The belt is 75 words has to be done by Thursday at the ballot argument doesn't have to be done until the following Wednesday. It's do the following. Right. Well, okay. So we would do that on the 15th is right. I thought you. Said the ballot question on the 10th ballot. We could do so. That would be the same timing I would propose. I'm sensing some reticence from your fellow subcommittee member taking on too much. I don't. And and another councilmember, Dave Saag, has kind of expressed a interest in staying away from this a little bit. I don't know if Councilmember Odie would be willing, but I'd be happy to find some time to work with somebody. And he thought he was going to duck being on a subcommittee, but it would really only be one. Change is how I'm going to vote on it. I'm fine. Yeah. Well, that's a fair question. That's. I mean, if that's okay with the mayor, I'm fine with that. Okay. So then for the subcommittee on the Carrying Alameda Act to be myself and Councilmember Odie. Oh, is it or that that's. Why you are me and John. I am afraid if you would like it. But you're trying to spread the spread the word for. It could be, you. Know, I think we're going to let council member Vela that that's good. We've we've we've divided up nicely. Okay. All right. So we've got so the ballot question and the arguments will be drafted by the subcommittee of the vice vice mayor. That's why I didn't. Councilmember Odie, is that under. That motion, which hasn't been seconded yet? Well, I just want to get into the motion, but. Okay, so it's been moved right here. Have a second. I'll second that so we can discuss it. Okay. And further discussion. During. Then why did. I'm sorry. I didn't want to comment on this because I didn't talk about it earlier. You know, we've heard some, you know, folks up here talking about how they've gone around the city recently and talked to a lot of voters. I did the same thing. I talked to a couple thousand people. And, you know, besides people speeding down their streets and their kids at risk of getting hit, the one thing that came up spontaneously after that was this. People would ask me, what do you feel about the homeless center? I mean, and they would ask you in a way like, you know, you have to answer because I'm not going to tell you how I feel. So you have to be honest with them and tell them. And to a one, none of the people I talked to were opposed. So I know that's you know, it's not scientific, you know, it's anecdotal, you know, but, you know, we were out there talking to people about the things that that they were concerned about. And this is an issue that people are concerned about. And I go back to the thing we said before. This is about Alameda carrying. So we can talk about that and we can say this is a value proposition that we have. This is a value as a city and our city can do better. So I, I think this is something we need to put on the ballot. We need to make sure the voters understand that this is a clear choice between having these services which are desperately needed and not having them. I think my my colleague, the vice mayor was very eloquent, said a very stronger than I probably ever would have. But I appreciated those comments because it's true. This is what this is about. This is about are we going to serve our most vulnerable people or are we not? And I think we need to give people a clear choice. And to me, this gives them a clear choice and they know what side they're voting on and if they're going to stand with the values that we share or they're not. So I will be voting for it. Right. Even though I got assigned to work. Yeah. Okay. With me. Okay. So we. We have a. A Motion Council member. It. And I do, you know, I think. I don't disagree with the proposition of that's being put forward. I actually agree very much with question B putting forward to voters. I think my concern is just this appearance that the council and part of why I didn't want to be involved in drafting it is we are drafting the arguments to the other measure. And so I think it's it's very important to segregate the two things and separate them so that there isn't an. Oh. Trying to use voters. I don't think that that's the goal of this council and also that whatever we're putting forward relative to the ballot question that we would also be drafting for the other measure is balanced and fair. So that that I just wanted to explain my reasoning for that. Good point. Thank you. In addition to the work. You know, good, very good plan. The fine art of saying no is something to cultivate. Further discussion. Council member and. I will vote no on this because you know, I'm all for a November 2020 election. But even when the project proponent, Mr. Biggs, came up and and made his discussions, my takeaway from his discussions were mainly barbs aimed at me rather than getting to the heart of the question that I raised earlier, which was I did not hear and I continue not to hear specific. Look wording from him that saying that if this is held in November 2020 that he would lose logic funding. So I, so I, I'm not at this point I'm not convinced I that by that argument I heard, you know, maybe people up here saying it. So I still believe that the superior decision is November 2020 when it comes to elections. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Can I just clarify in question? I mean, I know we are voting to put this on the April election, but you would support it if we were running the last one on the April. And this one on the November. You know, this all related to the previous one, which is April 19th over there. There are intimate there. They're intimately related. So. I guess I'm trying to understand just to see if we can if there's anything we can address. Is there is there something about what's being proposed that you have a concern with or literally the timing of it and because it's associated with the timing of the other? Well, it's the three issues. One was that, you know, you had 6000 residents saying that they want they want to have this to put to a vote, which we are doing. But from what I might take away from the leadership of that organization is they were fine with the November 2020. Yeah. Parallel to that, I did not hear a compelling evidence that that said that the project will crater if it is held in November 2020. So that's why even on this matter, because it was intimately related to item six, the to me it makes sense that it would be consistent. I should vote no. Okay. Thank you. With all due respect. No. That's fine. Okay. Anything further? All right, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. Oppose. Okay, so the measure passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone. Um. Um. Oh, wow. That's true. You're going to go home the same night we arrived. Um. We have next on the agenda. We have city manager communications. No communications. No, no communications. You say. Okay. And then we have oral communications, not agenda. No additional speakers, none. And any council referrals this evening. Negative. Okay. None. And so. Okay. So item ten is Council Communications. Council members can address any matter not in the agenda, including reporting on conferences or meetings. Who wants to start on my right. Whilst because I put this item, this council compact that the MTC put together. I wanted to share it with the public in case they weren't aware of it. I will be doing a referral to direct staff to come back and report on solutions that we can do.