Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement with SCI Consulting Group for a Comprehensive Stormwater Fee Study, Community Survey, and Balloting, Extending the Agreement for Seven Months in an Amount not to Exceed $94,009 for a Total Expenditure Under the Agreement, as Awarded, of $166,513. (Public Works 351)
Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, I am Liam Garland, your public works director. And by approving tonight's item, the city would be amending an agreement with Sky Consulting to conduct a comprehensive stormwater fee study. Oh, it would give us permission to go out and do a citywide community survey and do the underlying financial analysis to then come back to this body in late July and then again in October for a formal request to move forward with balloting. This is an issue we've touched upon quite a few times over the past two years. It's essentially that our stormwater fund, so the fund that enables us to sweep streets and clear storm drains operate stormwater pump stations. That fund is running on empty. We think by fiscal year 2021, there may be no funds left. Right now, we're operating on $1,000,000 deficit. Essentially, we've had a stormwater fee for a little bit more than a decade that has been flat. So as costs have increased, the fee has remained flat. And this is an opportunity to find out from our meetings their priorities when it comes to the stormwater fund and the programs it implements. If we were not to move forward tonight, then staff would have to take a closer look at where cuts would start because we can't go negative on the stormwater funds. So we'd likely look at street sweeping and storm drain maintenance as the areas where cuts might ensue. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. You may have. Any questions from council? Councilman Brody I mean, I pull this so I don't have an issue with like, you know, having a study or going through and surveying the community. My issue was that the proposed election, in my opinion, was inequitable because it excluded basically anyone who's not a property owner in Alameda. And I think if if there's going to be a fee assessed on property, which would ultimately be passed on to tenants at some point, that it should be an election that all Alameda INS take part of and not just property owners, including property owners who don't even live on the island. So just that's just my my concern with this whole timeline. Would you like me to address the concerns as best I can? Yes, I would. Well, I think that is would too, but I certainly with you. Sure. So there are definitely pros and cons to various approaches to have tenants, for example, weigh in formally through a ballot would essentially mean a general election open to all registered voters in Alameda, and that would raise the cost of the election. And it would also move the threshold for success from 50% plus 1 to 2 thirds. Now, the wise as to that, why our legal and political structure in the state treats those different elections differently. That is way above my my pay grade. But that is one of the one of the cons with moving forward with the general election. The way that we're attempting to move forward to address some of that concern is in our outreach and citywide community survey. We want to get as much representation in that survey from folks who are not property owners. So to push out the survey online through a press release, through various community groups, to have folks who aren't necessarily property owners weigh in on the merits of moving forward. Councilor, vice mayor. Not quite. Yet. So two questions. I know that we are not approving the balloting tonight. Assuming that you've got a timeline to come back to us about an election. Is there a conversation at that point in time about how we would. Do the do the balloting? I mean, it seems like there is an option here, but we could at that time decide to pursue other election ideas if we wanted. Yeah, let me think that through for a moment. So we would be back in front of council in this second meeting of June and July. And that is a pretty tight timeline. In order to have the balloting completed by the end of this calendar year. If there was to be a shift and we went to the general election, there would be discussions about the financials, about where that money would come from to fund that election. And we'd be looking at either it would have to be a special election and we'd be looking at either November of 2019 or the primary election in March of 2020 or jumping through till November of 2020. And yes, of course, that is up to the council's will at the second meeting of July. In terms of the ways to move forward, what I can do, given this discussion, is flesh those other options out with more detail and have those ready and shared with that council report at the second meeting of July, if that's the desire. Great. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, have one other question. Yeah. ACI is going to reach out to 10,000 households and whatever else. I just want to I assuming we move forward, just know with the idea of balloting, how are we going to make sure? Are we going to make sure that the that we receive a actual statistically significant sample of the population and not just whoever, whichever of the 10,000 get back to us. E we yes. So the results from this survey, we'd anticipate about 2 to 3000 responses and that will be a statistic, a statistically significant sample and so equivalent to what folks think of in terms of polling results that those are scientific surveys. But we'll be making sure that because you can get 2 to 3000 people to respond, but they may not be demographically representative. Representative, of course. Yes. So we'll be comparing that to renters versus homeowners. I mean, that would be my expectation is when they come back, we will understand that the data that will be provided is statistically consistent with the demographics of our cities, so that we if we were to go forward with a cheaper, lower threshold ballot, we would know that we were doing so based on surveys that actually helped us understand that renters versus homeowners, etc., were adequately represented. I'm sorry to interrupt. I now understand your question a little bit better. Let me give a fuller answer, which is the mailing to property owners. That will be a scientifically valid survey. The communications being pushed out to other non property owners that I can't guarantee that we're trying to solicit as much input from as many people as we can. And I can't I can't assure the scientific validity of that. We're hoping to get a big enough return that it looks pretty clear where aluminum is land or which categories of alum means land in a certain place. But that I couldn't guarantee. Does that make sense? It makes sense. Yeah, I. I'll wait to see the results. Right. Councilmember Desai, an area that I'm going to say something and council member disagree. So for purposes of the public is one of the objectives of the surveying to get at the nature of the fee that might be contemplated when it comes to the stormwater fee. For example, what I mean by nature is, you know, summer, summer house or whatever, the old one of his departments is more than 200 units, but they pay. When you look at their assessor, they pay $298 towards the hospital. So this is a large apartment project, but it's on one parcel and it pays $298 where and I pay $298 for my one parcel. So it is a nature of the survey to get at the whether or not there there is receptivity to making sure that the fee is scaled to the intensity of use. Or do we already know from the outset, you know, that that we want to. We don't the survey is a part of its purpose is to figure out the tolerance for various fee adjustments. And so it gets at that question. Great. Thank you. And council member. So I heard the answer to the vice mayor's a question that we would reevaluate this in July. But, you know, the staff report says by approving this a contract amendment, we will proceed according to the timeline below. And the timeline below does not give a decision point. It basically outlines proceeding with a election that, in my opinion, disenfranchizes over half of our voters. So I mean, is there some flexibility in this? And if we if we did have a decision point in July, would it still be a contract at this rate? Hundred and 66,000 or. I have another thing. And Mr. Garland, if you could hold your answer, which is to me and I'd like to hear from our city manager, Mr. Levitt. Mayor, as a Ashcraft and Councilmember Ody, I would recommend what you would do is just change the motion and just say direct to come back in July with the report or if it ends up moving to September by, let's say July with the report at that time providing options of how you would move forward with election, I would just revise the motion in that way. Okay. I think that's an inspired suggestion. And I. I wasn't finished. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Yes. Okay. That's right. Thank you. I appreciate that. That input from our new city manager working already in the first hour of his first meeting. I just still have a fundamental problem with I know it's easier. I know it's cheaper. But the right to vote here is not come cheap, is not come free to people, has not come easy. People have died. People have bled. We fought a civil war. We fought a revolutionary war. We fought fascism. And I just don't think it's something we should take away because it's easier and cheaper and disenfranchizing half of our over half of our voters are renters. And to me, it's just a slap in the face to us as the only renter on this council that we're not going to have a say in this. So I will make a motion. I think I'm going to make the motion. So then you guys could decide if you want a second hit with the suggestions by our city manager that in July we have a decision point. Yeah. And we'd like to hear from the acting city attorney, Mr. Ash. Thank you, Mayor. I would just also add that. That I think that we would want to take a look at the various timelines concerning the election. We may need to bring something back to the Council before July. If we're going to look at a a an election that doesn't necessarily involve property owners. There's some timelines there. There may be a need to have the election only at the general election. The issue about majority versus two thirds. There's a number of issues that that will flow from that decision, and we may need to have that decided before a July date, because that gets pretty close to a cutoff date if you were going to have a special election, for example, in November. So not saying that we will, but I want to just keep that option open so that we can have a further discussion with Liam's office and come back with something more definite to the council. To supplement that, we'd have to have ballot language ready and approved and then delivered to the county by early August. So that would necessitate, I think, some action before then. Okay. I didn't hear a second to the motion, so I'm going to make my comment now. I appreciate every thing, the comments we've heard. I also want to caution against conflating two issues that I think both deserve our serious attention, and that is we do need to protect our renters and and our residents. But it's very important giving them the opportunity to perhaps vote down this assessment because they fear it would raise their rent. It might be a possibility, but it could be short sighted. And one of the other things we have to consider as a council is what this means for our city in terms of protecting our information infrastructure , our ability to respond and be prepared for a sea level rise. And as far as a special election, I don't know about the rest of my colleagues. I can say having just come off of one, I'm certainly not excited about doing another one this year any time soon. But that is I do I do think that our new city managers will stop calling you new after the next meeting or so. But I think the and the suggestion is is an inspired one. But again, that last meeting in July then takes us into the August recess. So we wouldn't be coming back until September. I guess so. So Council. What's your pleasure? Yeah, Vice Mayor. Sorry. I'm assuming we don't have any public speakers. Oh, right. Well, you you didn't have any, and one was just requested, but you've already made a motion, so I. Know that's why I'm not seconding the motion yet. I think we should take the public view. Yeah, okay. I guess. You know, I didn't ask if there was public comment. There wasn't the motion, though. So we'll make a little exception here, because I didn't maybe if you heard me call for public comment, that would have. Oh, it's Ruth. Abby. I thought it might be. Hi. Come on at Miss Abby. Ever use the microphone and we could all hear you. Sorry to butt in. So I'm Ruth Abby with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. I am coming up to speak in favor of going forward with the study but also to go forward with a property tax assessment. And a property vote. I think that what you have to take into consideration is that, you know, what are the consequences of not spending this money? What are the consequences are not asking your residents to to pay for this fee to to have a general. Election, which requires. A two thirds vote. Which is. Extremely difficult to pass, means that you would not be really favoring the idea of this. Stormwater fee. And so if you really think that's what you want and you want to put that level of scrutiny of a two thirds vote to out to our public, that's a really heavy lift for us. And it requires a huge effort on the campaign. Right. So it's possible to do it would really strain a lot of resources of NGOs and others who would have to get involved in it. And the question is, isn't it what we all want? I mean, can't we find out through surveys and through other measures and outreach and education that this is what we want from our public, that we actually want to protect ourselves from sea level rise and flooding. So, you know, maybe it's not as hard of a of of a case that I want to make, but I feel as though if you direct the city staff to go forward with the general election, it will be because you do not favor the idea of having a stormwater fee on property. This is a stormwater fee on property. It's property owners that are appropriate to weigh in on whether they should have this fee. The California legislature. Has put a lot of imposition on local governments in raising fees. You know, and this is one of them. You know, we this is a way we can raise fees. It's very difficult to raise fees. This is one of the ways that we can raise it by going to property owners. So I just wanted to put in that. You know. As an organization that is really going to favor the idea of protecting ourselves from sea level rise. I would want you to. Direct staff appropriately. And really consider whether you actually want to to have this as a consequence. So thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Miss Abby. And now Rosemary Knox. So I just want to. Confirm and your next as well. I see you're. Hinting that the motion on the floor is is to the staff recommendation with the city manager's addendum to. And so I will second that motion. Okay. I just want a little clarification. The motion is what again, to come back with the. Present options when it returns as outlined by the city manager in when it returns in July to allow the council to decide or sooner. Or sooner. Or sooner. Okay. We've had a motion. It's been settled. And I believe Councilmember Vella has your hand up. I think we're making a lot of assumptions. Part of what we're trying to do is actually go out and get information from the public about what they are not interested in. And I think we're trying to do that in two different ways. One, we're trying to pull the property owners, which could, you know, could be indicative of kind of where they're at and whether or not they're actually supportive of this fee going out to a ballot at election and mail ballot election. But two, to actually do the general kind of polling and I know that it's not going to be a scientific poll, but do we really want to spend 100 or $200,000 on a scientific poll? I just I don't think that that cost is something that we really want to do. And I think that we can get to it by going to community groups and putting the pull out there. I do think that, again, I don't necessarily you know, I want to see what the the the property owners and the general voting public have to say, because any fee increase is not necessary. We've seen fee increase votes by property owners in other districts get voted down in Alameda. So I don't necessarily think one group is is more favorable to a fee increase than another. So I don't want to make that assumption. That's why we're actually that's why I'm going to be supportive of this contract and the amendments is to actually get that information, to find out if there's any there there where we can move forward. And I think in any event, we're going to have to figure out how to fund this. So whether it's through a fee increase, through property fee increase or through another sort of fee increase, we are going to have to fund this. This is a very real issue. Our streets do flood and we have a major stormwater issue. We've experienced it every winter. I personally have seen it happen where it's impacted me and other folks on my street. So it's something that I know hits at the heart of what we're trying to deal with. And if our stormwater system there is not working, we're going to be experiencing continuous flooding and that's going to impact renters , property owners and everybody else in it. And it currently is. So I'm ready to support this tonight. I'll support it with the amendments. I have no problem with it coming back with the a plethora of options. But I do think that we need to include in those options. If we don't vote to put this out there and to go to a vote, how are we going to fund it? Because that absolutely has to happen. We can't just say no thank you. Mr.. ALLEN I'll also add that the city has actually been under a consent decree over having sewage leak into the bay, and we've been, you know, paying and doing our share of the repairs required by that Councilmember Day. Sorry, so you're here. I just want to say quickly that I'm supportive of gathering information, but frankly, I come into this not as a blank slate. I do have my my preferences. And it really has to do with seeing a fee that is adjusted to take into account intensity of uses. Let me give you a case in point. Every time we have storm right around McDonald's, the hamburgers place, McDonald's on shoreline on Shoreline Drive, we always have flooding there. But by the same token, we also have a lot of multifamily apartments there. So whatever fee that we have, I think has to be calibrated to the intensity of uses. And so and I recognize that, you know, that we're at this point, we're just gathering information. But that is a certain concern of mine because it goes back to the hospital tax. When I look at summer hill, summer house, summer house homes only paying 298 and I'm paying the same amount. So in Councilmember Brody. I mean, just the last thing since we had that public speaker, I mean, I don't think anyone argues with the need for this. I just think it's a basic civil rights issue that we're going to exclude our renter population, which is predominantly a less wealthy than property owners, which is predominantly more people of color, and is predominantly probably more senior. I mean, to me, it comes down to basic civil rights. And, you know, I'm not one to throw away someone's civil rights because it's easier. It's cheaper. I mean, I'm perfectly happy doing this. I think we should do it the right way and not, you know, not take away people's civil rights and their right to vote. Okay. But what we're voting on tonight is simply to go forward with the study and get the information, come back to this council with the information you've gathered in July or before then. Okay. So we've had a motion. We've just you may. Try to my only comment. Is. I'll let your expert consultants figure out how to do this. But if you're going to bring back online survey data, I would like to know who has taken that survey, because online surveys tend to target a very specific demographic of people. And it is not necessarily representative of the city. And I am a little concerned that sometimes cities have a have a tendency to get lots of responses from the same types of people on online surveys. And then they come back and say, look at how many people we've heard from who say X, Y and Z. And they're often not the people that Councilmember Ortiz said. So I'm not getting into the ballot fight. I like the solution of just give us options and we'll have a conversation when that when that comes forward. This is clearly something that that we've discussed that I think is very important. And I want that to be clear. I would just like to make sure that if we're going to go out and talk to community groups, as Councilmember Vela has suggested, that we know which community groups and those are listed. And I would like to be able to look at that list and say, I can see how that is representative of our community and not just the same four groups that we go out and talk to all the time. And if we're going to do online surveys, I would like to know what the demographic information is for those surveys so that we can then point to whether or not we actually feel that the responses were getting are indicative of our community or a certain aspect of our community. But I'm happy to support this. And just for a point of understanding, what would you do to I mean, so survey results are returned and you get the information and you're not satisfied with the respondents. What would you do to compel more people or different people to respond? Well, I mean, sometimes we do we spend $25,000 to do a statistically significant Democrat study of demographics. We do one every two years for the city using EMC or any of the polling. It's you know, if that's what we're trying to I guess what I'm saying is I'm happy to say, to understand who's talking to me and that, and I will accept that. But I don't think we should then say the community has said X, Y and Z. If it's not, this is the community that's okay. So if I say so. So the answer is we have to spend the money to collect the the survey responses. We are saying we want or we need to be careful and very thoughtful. And in pursuing the input from the community, the community that we say we want. Do I hear? I hear cancer every day. So I mean, it's an important point, but it does raise our logistical questions. So as we. Paul, are we saying then that our polling is going to include the Renner population, or is our polling going to be specific to those who will be voting at this point, which is primarily property owners? So I mean, so that's the question that has to be answered, I think, right now or well. Soon enough in our our motion is not to make the decision that we doing one or the other of those things. That's all. I'm fine with that. And before I con Councilman Revelle and Mr. Garland, do you feel that you have enough direction? Come on up to the microphone. And while you're thinking of that Councilmember Villa want you in the. Well, I just want to clarify. I didn't read anything about a poll. I thought that we were going to be conducting a survey, which is. Yeah, they're different. Well, they're but they're different. They are. They are different. And so, you know, when we say the word poll, we we literally mean go out and do a scientific poll where you look at, you know, number of times people voted, that sort of thing. That's not what we're giving direction on, is my understanding. We're giving direction on having a survey performed correct with it with a poll specific to property owners. That's right. That it it's a scientifically valid poll just happens to be in writing and by mail for property owners. It could be the council's will to do both. In other words, to test out some of the similar questions and a telephone pole. And there would be a segment of the polled respondents that, for example, would be renters, and that that's a potential for the council to consider in terms of moving forward and with full consensus. What's the cost of that split? Probably double. What is it. Worth to have a telephone pole put in the field with results by July? I think we could get that done for about $30,000. And that would be contacting both renters and property owners or. Yeah, it'd be difficult. I think I'm by no means a pollster. I'd be different. I it difficult, I think to pull out property owners from their sample. So there would be some crossover. But the difference is with the telephone pole, you could see more specifically the broader representation of all our meetings who are not property owners. Does that make sense? Um, you probably enough for these purposes. Okay, i. I mean, I. I seems like there's at least two parts to this. So I'm hearing that we want to that the majority of the council may want to hear from all potential voters, renters or and homeowners. But then there's another part. If we decide to make this a general election, then we raise the threshold for passage. And I mean, what and what then? I mean, the implications of that? Or do we want to wait and have that discussion when we see the results? Councilman Brody, was that your hand up? That was kind of my answer. I assume we would those results would tell us. I mean, if the poll comes back in, 80% of the people are going to like this, then that informs a different decision than if if the numbers were different. I mean, this could be a super popular thing. We don't know. But we're being asked to basically foreclose on a path without having the full data in front of us. So I would imagine you kind of answered the question with your question, at least for my purposes. I want to speak for anyone else. Okay. Well, have we covered this territory enough? No, no, no. Yes. Councilmember De just seems to me that earlier, rather than later, we need to hammer out the nature of this election. What is it going to be? Renters and homeowners and property owners? Because from the outset, when we're doing either polling or survey ing, you know, you need to know that because if you're a property owner and then you feel somehow that the outcome of this is is being driven by by. But you know, people who aren't going to pay the fee, ostensibly. Potentially. Then maybe you have a different take on it. So I think we might want to have that conversation first as to, you know, is this going to be your your classic property owner based fee balloting or are we going to do something along the lines that Councilmember Odie wants? I think we should have that conversation first and then let's figure out what kind of polling and survey we're going to be doing. Okay. And I would then ask about the timing on that. But let's see, I saw I think I saw Councilmember Vela's hand up first and then the vice mayor. So I just want to be clear, the motion on that that's currently out there does not include polling because people keep talking about polling. And then I hear people say, well, I want polling so that if if the decision is that you want to amend, that you want to amend it so that you can include both some sort of poll as well as the the mail poll, a phone call or an email poll, then that needs to be amended. But the second thing is, I actually think that the question is the questions that we're looking at are do we want to do it? Do we want to do the fee based off of intensity or do we want to do a flat fee increase? There are other questions out there that I think are going to dictate the response that you're going to get. And certainly I think. We have to. We have to get the feedback on those sorts of things before we can make a decision about what we're going to pursue. And before I call on the Vice Mayor, so my question would be to the acting city attorney and Mr. Garland. Does it make a difference whether the vote, the eventual vote is for a flat fee or based on square footage of your property or some some more proportional individual formula? Can I go first? And the honorable city attorney will correct me. I think in this instance, there's got to be a nexus between the services provided through the stormwater fee and the actual property. And so it's very likely under either approach that it's going to get to something called impervious surface units, essentially an acre of property. How much payments on it? How much landscaping is on it? One's pervious ones not. And that drives the fee. And that's for larger than single family properties and then for single family properties. Since you had a study conducted to come up with a flat fee that averages out across all those properties using the same methodology, and that that is under either scenario, that's that's the way we go. Okay. So it's looking like flat fee is what you're saying. Well, it's flat for single family homes and then it varies based on the conditions of the property for other all other properties. Okay. All right. Do you want to chime in second that whatever? Well, I don't disagree with that. The only thing that I'm a little bit uncertain about is the percentage that is needed to pass, depending on what what it is that's being considered. And I don't. It may well be two thirds, and it probably is, but I can't. I can't say categorically right now that that's what it's going to be in all incidents, although I believe that's the case. Oh, okay. Well, that's certainly something we would want clarified when you come back. I saw the vice mayor's hand up. Correct. And then Mr. Deegan. I was just going to I mean, I, I, I think the motion captures what we want, which is you're going to go ahead and get the community feedback. Right. We've given some comments about how we'd like the feedback clarified when it comes back. So we have some understanding who's getting it. And we're going to have a conversation about what are the different thresholds and pros and cons of different types of elections, costs, etc. And at that point in time we can decide that. And if we decide at that point in time, we want to do some more statistically significant surveys because we're gonna go to the voters or something like that. We can do that at that point in time. Right? So I'm just wondering if we're getting wrapped up in trying to decide what type of an election when we've given direction to come back for that conversation in the future. As long as Mr. Garland has sufficient information with which to go back and put his report together. I do I do want to make sure I'm following counsel's direction on this vote, which is the the fee study moves forward and in addition, these other things happen, correct? Correct. Right. Yes. Got it. Yes. And I. Was going to miss Councilman. Brody. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to basically say what John said. You know, we should make that decision with all of the relevant information in front of us. So whether it's who's going to vote for this, how it's going to be structured, you know, what thresholds, you know, all that is for us to make. And, you know, I look forward to the report. Okay. So then we have a motion it's been seconded all in favor I and he opposed any abstentions hearing then the motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. That was item five. H. And the next one pulled was five L. Correct. I know. Councilmember Vela. I have a I have a question about this. A lot of different districts included in the map. Oh, okay. And so I'm asking I'm just asking a question on the recusal. 45l. Okay. So there's several. There's several maps included. Mm hmm. In five l. That are throughout the city. And is your and your question is because your personal property is within one of those areas, whether you should recuse yourself with respect to that matter. Yeah. Because there's so many different areas. Yeah. I, I think our position on this has been that if your personal property is within that, even though it does contain a large area, I would be concerned that it doesn't reach the 25% threshold. So therefore, if you have property within that district, I would suggest that you recuse yourself on that particular item. But we could recuse herself based off of the zone. Do we have to recuse ourselves for the rest of the item? So you're saying you want us to break it out in vote zone by zone? Yeah. Actually, because there's zones one through eight. Correct. And can we feasibly vote on the ones on the zones that aren't within that? That is correct. You could recuse yourself simply with respect to zone six or whatever that particular zone is that your property's involved in. Okay. No, I could buy zone eight. Me too. Okay. Just. So. And killed somebody. I'm not impacted by any. But I know this has come up in the past and I thought we gave direction that when something like this is brought forward, that we check with different council members and make sure that it's set up in a way that, you know, we're not going to have mass recusals or we don't have three people to vote. Because I remember my colleague, Mr. Medeiros, that you would always have to take himself out of the the Marina Marina village. So if in the future we could do that, I think it'd be appreciated by the. Council. And I think we have done that with with council member de SA because we are aware of this property. I'm not sure that we necessarily had Ms. Vella's property in the in the mix, but we certainly will. Okay. Okay. So then do council member, did they need to leave the room or. I think in those circumstances, you know. You can recuse from the vote on. Yes. Okay. So let's do this. Do I or is there any more discussion? Because hearing then what I would suggest is that we approve zones one through seven. Right. And then moved. And a second. Second. Okay. All in favor of zones approving the adopting the resolution to approve the annual report declaring the city's intention due to the levy and collection of assessments for zones one through seven. Signify by saying. I. I. Okay. That was unanimous, right? No news, no sense. Okay. And then I know we have two who are recusing themselves virtually here. Do I have a motion to approve the same resolution as it pertains to zone eight? So moved. Second. It's been moved. It's been seconded. All in favor. I that would be through unanimous. That resolution is also adopted. And Councilman decide. Yes. The recuse. What for? Correct. Okay. Okay.