Transcription

May 19, 2026 · 5:00 PM

Whisper version: 1
Generated: May 20, 2026
Archive URI: berkeley_947e6515-da54-4a69-a746-e80c81ba7e3b.ogg

Segment 1

Segment 2

Thank you very much. Council member Kaplan. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and good afternoon. Could we just see the arguments for and against the GO Bond? Sorry for the GO Bond, right? Correct. There it is. Okay, very helpful. Thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor Tregub. Thank you. Three questions. First, just a clarification. When you mentioned Central Berkeley, is that Central and South? Yes, so the definitions of the- sorry, one second, I will pull up my- so yes, we create three regions. The sample's not big enough to be able to break out every district on its own, right? They are- it's not a reliable end size in each individual district. So the definitions of these three regions are what we call the hills, is Council Districts 5, 6, and 8. We'll call Central slash South, which is combined, is Districts 3, 4, and 7. And then West is Districts 1 and 2. Okay, thank you. You spoke about- I mean, the recommendation- well, the overarching conclusion is that, based on polling, both measures are- there is a greater than 50-50 chance that they would pass, provided that there is a robust campaign. What can you say about the intensity or how- what might this be impacted by the intensity of the opposition campaign, for example, if there is an organized opposition campaign? Certainly. I would say if there is no opposition campaign, these are in a very strong position to pass. It would be unlikely for the no vote to increase enough to defeat these measures if there is no actual campaign on the no side. And that has been the- you know, once some- occasionally that has been true. There's been very little opposition campaign. If there is an opposition campaign, that's what we simulated, right? With that informed ballot was a pro, a yes campaign, and also a no campaign communicating equally with voters. So, I think we would say as, you know, what we showed them as the- sorry, could you all hear me? Can you all hear me all right? You're here now, but you- there was a checklist there. Apologies. That's probably on my end. I am traveling this week, which is why I couldn't be here in person. But the- so we- if there was no- if there was not any opposition campaign, I would say these are in a quite strong position to pass. If there is an opposition campaign and it is equal to- roughly equal to the positive campaign in favor of the measures, that's what we simulated in the survey with that head-to-head argument. And that would suggest that in that situation, it would be close, but, you know, more likely to pass than not. And of course, if you had a massive opposition campaign and some big funder came in to, you know, constantly hammer at these things and tell voters it's a terrible idea and that would be, you know, those who are more no than yes, this would be- these would be in some nature that would be less likely to pass in that situation. Yeah, thank you. And obviously, when- in particular, the Go Bond, when it's so close to the line, I think this is probably going to be of importance. My last question is around, you know, any high-level thoughts you could share with us around best practices for the packaging of these two ballot measures, if we were to include both of them on the ballot. It's, you know, the no argument, like when you have the battery of negative information out there, understandably revolves around, you know, the message, we've been taxed enough, and there are different- well, if you put it that way, if you put the language back up, you know, I think it talks about affordable housing, it talks about other areas of investment. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts around how we can explain, this is why the two measures are needed, but just as importantly, this is why they're structured differently, because they are funding different things that could not necessarily be funded through a different revenue stream. It's a complicated question. Let me preface it by saying that, obviously, with the, you know, publicly funded research that we're doing here, we are not directly advising any campaign, either the yes or no side, right? We're just telling you the information based on the- what we learned from the voters. I would say, though, that we- one thing we know, which we know from previous experience, as well as the earlier testing about the contents of the bond and sales tax measure, is that we deliberately highlighted here in this description some of the things that we knew voters care most about in the City of Berkeley, and that that is certainly important if- for any effort to pass these measures, to highlight the actual impacts that they would have, possibly, on the priorities that voters have, and those include ensuring safety, first and foremost, and quality of life, the importance of repairing things that are- that need fixing, such as streets and parks, improving and increasing affordable housing. So those things are specified in part because we know that voters care a lot about them, and we have research data to support that. I hesitate to go too much further in terms of offering any strategic advice other than to say it's, you know, those in support of the measure would certainly need to talk about the importance of those- funding those specific outcomes, the improvements that are needed, and creating a sense of urgency, recognizing the, you know, the structural deficits, the infrastructure deficit that is longstanding, and the importance of funding to catch up with those. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member O'Keefe. Thank you. I'll start by saying I'm kind of- I'm only gonna ask about the sales tax measure. It's kind of the only thing I have eyes for right now. I'm pretty concerned- there's a question coming, I promise. I'm concerned about these numbers. I hear your confidence, you know, it's- I hear you say things like it's very well positioned to pass, and I appreciate your arguments about the undecided voters and the dynamics of how things can change. But a lot of these numbers for the sales tax are disturbingly close to the 50% threshold, considering the margin of error is 4%. So given that is my concern, I'm- I'm really curious about- about this result that hearing it second after the GO bond actually seemed to increase- am I reading that correct? It seems to increase the support if they heard the GO bond first and then- and then about the sales tax. Is that right? Yes, and you are not the only person who was somewhat surprised by that result. Yeah, because I'm really concerned about it, you know, maybe in a vacuum it would pass, but the presence of other- other items. So I'm wondering- yeah, thank you for confirming that that is indeed surprising. Do you have any theories or is that- is that a more common result than you would expect? My hypothesis, and there's no way to test this in the- retrospectively, is that a general sales tax, people think of it as going to just sort of general operations, right? And it's like, sure, maybe you need it, maybe you don't. And that the cumulative effect of the description of the urgent funding priorities for the city that were contained in both measures, and the specific improvements that would result in terms of, you know, public safety, quality of life, fixing things that are broken, may have created a- just a slightly greater sense of belief that, yes, we need to fund things in the city. And, yes, we have some deficits we need to address in terms of those facilities and services, right? So that would be my guess as to why it would be slightly higher as a result of having heard both. And I would say that generally just reassuring that it doesn't matter much what order you put the two in, but all things being equal, you would go ahead and put the bond first and then the sales, given these findings. And that would- and then I would also point to the broader conclusion that there are a lot of revenue measures here, and it does appear that the cumulative weight of those is pulling these down a little bit from where they were a couple of months ago. Yeah, thank you, actually. Thank you for that last comment, because that was my second question. Is- it wasn't clear to me, and I'm sorry if you did make this clear, but I missed it if you did. Did you- you didn't do a similar test? It looks like you did poll about all the other measures, but- We did, and we did all of those before- sorry, just to clarify what I think- where I think you're getting at, which is that we did test all of the other local and regional measures before these two deliberately because we wanted to make sure we understood the reality of voters seeing all these measures on the ballot, and the only way to do that in a poll, which is sequential rather than a ballot where you're looking at it all at once. Is to- to pass all the other ones first, and then this- and then the two that we were most focused on. So this is the- it's a tougher test, but it is a more realistic test for those two measures to- for voters- for us to know that voters are going to see, you know, these seven or eight different kinds of local revenue and or, you know, money-related measures. And, you know, looks like the support is still pretty solid for both of these, but it is a little bit lower than what we were measuring a couple months ago. Okay, oh, that's- that's helpful. Thank you for clarifying. So just to be sure I understood you correctly, all of these numbers for both the GOA and the sales tax were all measured after asking about the other measures. That's right, and you'll see that it's quite- it's laid out in sequence in the top line results, which is another document submitted as part of the report. Thank you so much. I would like to move on because I know we have quite a bit of presentation time left, so I'm going to pass it back to our city staff. Sounds good. Can everyone hear me okay? Great. So good afternoon, Honorable Mayor, City Council, and community. Before trans- oh, my name is Carrie. I'm an assistant to the city manager. And before transitioning into the revised project portfolio, we want to briefly frame the broader infrastructure context and intended impact of the proposed GO bond. So, as this slide shows here, existing annual funding addresses only a small portion of Berkeley's infrastructure needs. Many funding sources for the city are restricted, one-time, or competitive when considering grants. And ultimately, this deferred maintenance continues to increase long-term repair costs and operational risk. At the same time, kind of going to the green part in the middle, Berkeley does have a strong track record of leveraging prior infrastructure investments. For example, Measure T1 passed by voters in 2016 leveraged approximately $100 million in bond funding into roughly $183 million in total investment through grants and external funding. T1 is winding down as less than five of the 75 projects have yet to start construction. And this bond measure has been responsible for improvements across Berkeley, including the Adult Mental Health Clinic, North Berkeley Senior Center, Live Oak Community Center, the award-winning Willard Clubhouse, Berkeley Courtyard, Aquatic Park Tie Tubes, improvements to the Berkeley Rose Garden, a variety of streets, including portions of Adeline and University Avenue along the waterfront. As well as a variety of green infrastructure projects. Some of the projects under construction right now include improvements to two fire stations, MLK Yap, D&E docks, as well as the Santa Fe right-of-way conversion to a park. So these bonds are, these bond funds are totally committed and will be fully spent in the next 18 to 24 months. So the proposed geo bond structure would support the next phase of strategic infrastructure investment focused on public safety, accessibility, resilience, community serving facilities, and long-term stewardship of critical public assets. Just give me one second. There we go. This slide may look familiar. It shows the estimated taxpayer impact of a proposed $300 million general obligation bond, assuming that $100 million is issued every five years beginning in 2027. So this slide provides two views. First, a historical look at tax rates associated with previously approved geo bonds. That's sort of the gray shaded portion you see there. And then second, a forward-looking estimate of the proposed $300 million geo bond when combined with existing bond authorizations. That's sort of the dark blue shading that you see. So under this scenario, the combined average tax rate from 2027 to 2067 is estimated at 0.0441%, or in layman's terms, $44 per 100,000 of assessed value. So for the median assessed home value in Berkeley, this equals approximately $242 per year. So importantly, the projected combined average tax rate remains below historical averages for existing authorizations and below rates seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. So in short, the proposed bond remains within Berkeley's historical range of geo bond tax rates. We're going to bring back a couple of slides you may have seen. So this one may look familiar to many, but we wanted to note that the proposed geo bond framework still organizes projects into three primary categories or themes. Community facilities and quality of life, public safety, and critical infrastructure and accessibility. This structure was intended to make the project portfolio easier to understand from a public-facing perspective, while still reflecting the complexity of Berkeley's infrastructure needs. Staff have also developed and applied a more formalized evaluation methodology to improve transparency regarding how projects were assessed and prioritized, and I'll get into that in the next couple of slides. We also wanted to bring back this slide and note for those just being informed about this process, following the December 2025 council work session, staff launched a community engagement process from January of this year through March. This engagement helped inform the draft project portfolio and broader infrastructure priorities. It included meetings with city commissions, community focus groups, joint district meetings, and a city webpage and email for public feedback. During these meetings, staff shared the project portfolio and asked for input on which projects felt most urgent, what needs or communities may be missing, where investment could improve access and equity, and which investments would provide the greatest long-term benefit for Berkeley. In conjunction with council direction, as well as the community survey, this feedback helped staff refine and prioritize the portfolio. So one of the major goals in refining the project portfolio was improving transparency around how projects were evaluated and prioritized. So to support that effort, staff developed a six-factor evaluation framework designed to assess both public benefit and implementation feasibility. I think this is attachment two in your packet. Projects were evaluated across six categories seen on the slide here, health, life, and safety, infrastructure condition, accessibility and resilience, community use and equity, green resiliency and sustainability, deliverability and readiness, and external funding potential. I do want to note that we did incorporate criteria from the Park Recreation and Waterfront Commission's information report where they evaluated projects. This helped improve our definitions and framing in our methodology and just wanted to note that. So looking at this slide, the highest weighted categories ranging from health, life, and safety through green resiliency and sustainability, those were weighted at 20%, and deliverability and external funding leverage were weighted at 10% each. Projects then received low, medium, and high rankings within each category, which translated into weighted scores, contributing to an overall score out of 100. So generally, as noted on this slide here, projects scoring 75 and above were considered higher priority, 50 to 74 medium priority, and anything below 50 lower priority. So importantly, this framework was intended as a decision support tool, not purely a mechanical ranking system. So staff also considered council direction, geographic distribution, sequencing, community feedback, updated cost estimates, and overall portfolio balance when refining the proposed project list. So ultimately, this evaluation methodology is intended to help staff understand priority phasing should the general obligation bond pass. This slide summarizes the current working financial framework associated with the bond. The framework currently assumes $300 million in total bond sales, approximately $13 million in assumed bond interest earnings on the conservative end, and a total projected program capacity of approximately $313 million. The project portfolio itself currently totals approximately $272.5 million across the three infrastructure categories. And the most important part, the framework also includes approximately $40.5 million in staffing and implementation-related resources. So this is an important component of the framework because the bond program of this scale requires significant delivery infrastructure over many years. So this could include project management, compliance, any required costs related to auditing and reporting, and general program administration needs. So these implementation resources are intended to support a responsible project delivery, not necessarily ongoing operational staffing. And with that said, I'll turn it over to our Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Director, Scott Farris, who will talk more about the community facilities and quality of life project portfolio. Thanks, Gary. Mayor and council. So, she's already introduced me, I'll introduce my staff that are here to support and provide detailed answer to questions if you have them. They're sitting behind me. Evelyn Chan is supervising civil engineer and Taylor Lancelot, who was acting. Acting in Nelson's place, Nelson Lamb is also a supervising civil engineer. Okay, so I'm going to take you through 20 proposed PRW projects, Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront projects, and talk about them just briefly, each project and a little bit of history. So, 1st on the list here is Francis Alvarez Community Center. This project was, first of all, Francis Alvarez is the only senior center that is not seismically safe at this point. So, T1 has taken care of all the other facilities, and we've got 1 under construction and another 1 to be under construction soon, but Francis Alvarez was got conceptual money to design the community center and T1 phase 1 and we had an amazing 2 year process, which we designed a community center there and we'd like to go ahead and build that community center. And that is essentially replacing, that's a tear down and replacement like Willard was, so it's a full replacement, a brand new facility. It is a very small facility, given the amount of people that it serves and a much larger facility in the same kind of envelope is going to serve the community much, much better. Next, we're going to talk about the Harrison turf field conversion. So this converts Harrison Park soccer fields or 2 soccer fields there from from grass to artificial turf. This is really important to all the sports field users, because it'll produce about 120% more play time. That field is closed 6 months a year, largely because of the wear and tear and. Sometimes more than that, the sub base of that field needs total renovation and needs to be repaired and so it really limits the amount of use and how long we can keep that grass green. So, what we replace it with turf, it's really going to improve the amount of time that the youth can play on the fields. We've got several restrooms here. We're going to talk about a couple of them are on the T1 list. Harrison Park was originally on the T1 list and then got pulled off at the end because we need to consolidate dollars along with the restroom. The park at the waterfront, so in this. Case, this would fund the construction of those 2 restrooms and so at Harrison and the Berkeley waterfront. We're adding 2 new restrooms to this list, Cedar Rose and Kornesis and we've gotten a lot of feedback about these 2 parks and upgrading the restrooms from essentially what we call our block restrooms with just a toilet to something that's more user friendly. The last project on the list here is the king pool and locker room and I'll talk more about this project at the end on our 4th slide where we talk about how our projects have changed. Next slide. Carrie. So, the next next 6 projects are kind of the next 7 projects are kind of a combination of play structures and open spaces and greenies. And so this list actually changed dramatically throughout the public process in the city manager's eyes Cedar Rose for us is kind of a no brainer. It's fully designed and ready to bid out. In fact, we have bid out the 5 to 12 place structure now, and the 2 to 5 place structure is designed and ready to go. We just need the allocation to construct it. Something very similar Gwendolyn Loma, we've gone through a 2 year process there where we've designed done a conceptual design and we're not that far from being able to construct that site got a lot of good input over the last year and a half. And we've got a final conceptual design there. We've added a couple of projects here during T1 phase 2, and we did a lot of public process. A couple of projects that came up in district 8 were Monkey Island Park and the Garber path right away, which includes a walkway kind of a street and a bunch of landscaping. And they didn't get funded in T1 phase 2, but we didn't have a whole lot of projects in district 8, so we kind of went back and took another look at that and heard some feedback from community and added those 2 projects. And while they're right together, so we would include them, probably in 1 project, and we would improve potentially improve the, the. Elements of Monkey Island, and just a total we do a cover path. A couple of projects down below the outline corridor space. This is. Refers to, we have an outline quarter plan. Public works is in the process of designing that street plan from all the way to the Oakland border. So, and we're also, we've got, we've got 30% design funding on that. We're applying for 100% defines funding. That design funding doesn't include the open space and there's going to be transportation dollars to fund that project as we move forward, but funding the park, or the open space. We're not going to have. We have actually about 850,000 dollars, which will be a HUD grant to do some design there, but we're going to need money to construct that as the outline plan goes on. And so that's what these dollars are for. We're talking about a 12 to 15 year spend here. So, we're anticipating in the next few years, we'll be ready to construct those open spaces and in the outline quarter, another project, a couple of projects were added was the Dwight open space, which is what people refer to as the outline triangle as the telegraph avenue plan is executed, it's going to create an additional open space at the outline at a line triangle and so this project, we would construct it with a 3,000 square foot open space, and we're going to be able to do that in the next few years. So, we're anticipating in the next few years, we'll be ready to construct those open spaces and in the outline quarter, another project, we would construct it with a 3.5M native plant median conversions. We've heard for years about the importance of converting some of our bigger, larger medians in Sacramento and university to native plant gardens and we've heard a lot of feedback and then the public process and so this money allows us to do 3 or 4 blocks on Sacramento and university. The last 5 projects are all waterfront projects and the 3 of these projects are very grant eligible and so we're only asking for a portion of the projects that we anticipate getting grants to fund the remaining portion. The perimeter pathway, the sea level rise bay trail project, and the seawall drives bay trail improvements are all projects that we know we're going to be able to secure grants for, not 100% positive, but given our ability to secure grants, we're pretty positive that those will, we're just, these are just leverage money in order to complete the project. The last 2 projects, the South Cove seawall project, if you haven't been down to the South Cove seawall, you know it's failing and once that seawall fails, everything that happens there will cease to happen. So, everybody who launches from that South Cove, Cal Adventures, Cal Sailing won't be able to use that and won't be able to use that area. And so this totally replaces the seawall and the other functional project here is the timber pile replacement. We did some of this in T1 phase 1, or T1 phase 2, and we are permit ready. Our permit doesn't expire for another 3 to 4 years, so as soon as this, if this one were measured and passed in November, we could execute the additional $3 million of a pile replacement immediately. Okay, next slide. Okay, so what's changed here? And I'll kind of skip the top area of what we kept and what's advanced, but what's been.

Segment 3

I'm Mark Humbert, and I'm going to talk to you a little bit about how we've been able to scale down a little bit. I talked earlier about King Pool, and how that shifted a little bit originally we proposed it was in the proposal was $25 million to replace the pool. We got a lot of feedback about that. Pro and con, not the right location. We should deal with West Campus or put the pool at St. Francis Albriar. And so ultimately, as we went through, knowing we needed to scale back on some of our projects, essentially, that original list probably had, I think, close to $430,000, $430 million worth of projects needing to scale back to meet our $300 million. That was one of the projects that came off the list. And we had a variety of pros and cons and people who supported and people didn't support it. So we scaled it back to $5 million and did a renovation of the existing two pools there. And one of the things that's happening at King, as opposed to West Campus, King is kind of up in the hills. There's a lot of movement in that ground. The concrete was poured in the middle 60s. And so it's starting to move. And so we're having constant breaks in our pipes that are associated with that concrete. We have one now where we're losing water, and I'm funding it in fiscal 27, but this has been constant over the last 5 years. The concrete is just getting old and it's moving. The ground is moving. And so we're having problems there. That whole thing needs to be replaced. Things that were moved or deferred, we had proposed about, I think, anywhere between $2 to $4 million worth of dog parks, live oak park improvements that included the basketball courts and the open grass area there. And we also proposed a project for a University Avenue sea level rise and bike park. And then we had kind of a portion of Aquatic Park Dreamland. We know that Dreamland area project is going to cost us about $8 million. And we think we have a funding source for about 3 quarters of it. So all those got removed. Ultimately, there are grant sources out there that can fund some of that and park stacks. And so that was one of the reasons why for the removal. If you have detailed questions, I can tell you about each project. And then I've talked about the ones we've added. All right, good evening. I'm going to talk about the fire and public safety projects. So there's 4 main drivers to the urgent need to renovate the city's public safety infrastructure tonight. I'm going to provide a high level overview of why it's important that this work begin now. First, the stations are simply too old. The city's 2023 fire facilities master plan found that nearly every facility needs major renovation or replacement. Most of Berkeley's fire stations were built in the 50s and 60s and no longer support current staffing. Employee health and safety standards or long term operational demands. Acting now prevents an emergency situation for future future councils and staff. Emergency responses have increased 60% 65% in the last 30 years and today's fire service response to far more than fires. In fact, it's almost a misnomer that we're called the fire department. Third, the complexity of each project and the impact to employee health and safety. Fire stations have to remain operational following a large seismic event, which means that they have to meet California's essential services act. So it's slow going and it's really expensive. We also know that emergency responders faced increased risk of cancer from carcinogen exposure. A lot of this happens in the living quarters because older fire stations aren't built with separated facilities where the contaminated gear and apparatus are stored. So, it's really expensive. We also know that emergency responders faced increased risk of cancer from carcinogen exposure. A lot of this happens in the living quarters because older fire stations aren't built with separated facilities where the contaminated gear and apparatus are off gas and carcinogen throughout the day. So, these new stations will be built with those those segregated areas that will improve employee health long term and reduce the number of cancer diagnosis that we have each year. And finally, all of the public safety projects included within this framework. Incorporate resilience and sustainability components, primarily solar and battery backup. So, this not only will take the facilities to energy neutral, but we'll prepare the city for transition to the fleet, a fleet of electric fire engines in the next 10 to 15 years. So, the bottom line for us is these upgrades are not expansions. So, the bottom line for us is these upgrades are not expansions. They're critical reinvestments in aging infrastructure to ensure reliable emergency response for the next 75 years. Starting now allows the city to phase the work responsibly over the coming decades instead of deferring these complex and necessary projects to the community and the councils of the future. Thank you. Good afternoon mayor council members. We'll hear Mary interim director of public works. This slide begins with 1 of the city's most visible and liability sensitive infrastructure needs accessibility. The 5050 sidewalk program at approximately 14.6Million helps accelerate sidewalk replacement citywide and address a long way list of unsafe and even conditions in parallel. The 4.5Million ADA barrier removal allocation focuses on improving access within city owned facilities and paths of travel for individuals with disability. The category also preserves funding for essential service facilities, including animal service upgrades. The Berkeley mental health annex renovation. South Berkeley senior center mechanical system improvements and the remaining funding needed to complete the African American holistic resource center that was a commitment to the city made. Overall, these investments prioritize accessibility. Public safety, essential services and long term facility reliability while helping ensure that limited capital dollars are directed towards the city's highest impact needs. This slide continues the critical infrastructure and accessibility category with the focus on civic buildings, public safety facilities and historic civic assets. These are not just building improvements. They support daily city operations, public access, emergency response and long term facility reliability. Key investments include the 1947 Center Street elevator replacement project, which addresses safety, reliability and access. Moving on to the 2180 mobile modernization project, which addresses aging building systems again. Improving accessibility. Hazardous material. And so forth and moving on to 2100 MLK public safety building, which is a major investment in our 24 hour emergency operations hub, including the 911 dispatch center. The slide also includes grand match funding for the model building and the veterans Memorial building, helping the city position these historic civic assets for future restoration and community use. Overall, with this approximate 75 million dollar investment, this category reflects a practical balance between essential facility modernization. Accessibility public safety operations and responsible stewardship of important civic assets. This slide summarizes how staff refined the critical infrastructure and accessibility category to make the portfolio more focused and easy to deliver. Most of the core projects were preserved because they address well documented needs related to accessibility. Life safety, seismic resilience, essential services and public safety operations. A few changes that were made to somewhat improve the alignment and reduce duplication or city hall and the veterans Memorial building. They were scaled to the minimum funding needed for grand match opportunities, rather than the full funding restoration through the bond for the seismic upgrades. It's necessary. Dispatch center was folded into the broader public safety building project, which better reflects the shared facility systems and emergency operation needs at the 2100 MLK building. The Berkeley family wellness center was removed because it has recently been worked on. It's been improved. And as a lower near term priority for us, the African American holistic resources center was added to close a known funding commitment that the city has made to fulfill that project. These changes preserve the city's highest priority civic accessibility and public safety investments while keeping the portfolio focused strategic and defensible. With that said, I'll hand it over back to our deputy city manager again. So, in addition to looking at the general obligation bond to support infrastructure needs, as we mentioned, we also explored the feasibility of an increase in the sales and use tax measure of 0.5% from 10.25 to 10.75%. And what we know in working with our outside consultants that could generate anywhere from 9 to 10Million dollars in general fund resources that we have proposed to help offset our general fund structural deficit. And what this slide really helps to emphasize is how we have proposed those resources be deployed. So they're proposed to be used across three departments, parks, recreation and waterfront, the police department and fire department and working from the bottom to the top for the fire department. These resources would be proposed to be used to maintain a fire station for and keeping that open for the police department. It would be proposed to be used for fifteen police officers and six dispatchers in total. That would be useful to help keep the department operating in a manner that they can proactively address public safety needs. And then lastly, for our parks, recreation and waterfront department, these resources would be deployed to help support critical staffing to ensure that after school programs, camps, community centers, pools, and other very important programs for our youth can continue to operate as they currently do. So, where are we and what's on the horizon? So, as mentioned before, we are bringing, we brought forward to this evening the results of the second survey, the results of the refined infrastructure project list. And in terms of going forward after this evening, we look forward from direction to council to move ahead with developing ballot language for both the GO bond and the sales and use tax measure. If we receive that direction, our intention is to be back in front of you on June 16th with the proposed ballot language. And that will give council plenty of time if necessary to make any additional adjustments, because we have to have that to the county on August 7th. And we would like to obviously, if necessary, have that done by the last council meeting on July 28th. So, just to come back to what we're looking for this evening from the city council, the three actions that we reviewed at the beginning of this meeting. First is to affirm direction to continue to move ahead with the general obligation bond ballot language. Second is to give us feedback on the project list that have been presented by our three directors. And then lastly, to affirm direction to continue to move ahead with the sales and use tax and draft ballot language for that as well. Mayor, we'll turn it back over to you to facilitate. Thank you. Thank you very much, Deputy City Manager and also team. I really appreciate the presentation. And what I'd like to do is start with questions from my council colleagues on the part two of this presentation. And then we will take public comments and then we'll come back for deliberations, discussions. Are there any questions from my council colleagues? Yes. Council Member Keserwani. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Thank you to our three department folks for your presentations. I did want to ask you, Chief Ferris, the situation with Kingpool, I didn't quite follow. I mean, I understand it's old. And the presentation said that so you're just proposing. Actually, can you just clarify what exactly you're proposing for Kingpool? Essentially, we're redoing the infrastructure associated with the two pools there and the pump room. So the concrete, the piping, the pumps and the filters. OK, because I think because I thought you were suggesting another pool somewhere, but that's not part of this. Because I feel like I don't know if I made it up, but like you were saying something about a pool of Francis Albrier. So there was some feedback as a part of a conceptual plan for the community center in San Pablo Park, Francis Albrier. There was a discussion around a pool. In fact, it was included in the original conceptual plan. And so as we brought this to the public, there was some concern that we were spending money at King and not building a new pool there. And just to remind you, we a few years ago in 2020, we signed a new agreement with the school district. It gives us a 30 year lease at Kingpool, but only a 10 year two fives lease at West Campus pool. And the thought at that time was, as we were going through that process, that either the school district might use West Campus for some other, some other thing or that we wouldn't need it because we potentially would build a pool at in San Pablo Park. And so as we started to take it through public process, we got a lot of that feedback. Hey, you know, why rebuild a brand new pool at King should be more equitable. She do something and Francis Albrier and ultimately, as we kind of went through priorities and heard feedback, there were some a lot of people in favor of King, a lot of people in favor of San Pablo Park for pool, and a lot of people that just thought we should just renovate King, the existing King pool. And so that's where we landed. Oh, variety of reasons. I didn't quite follow this full story. I wasn't so. OK, so. And actually, this raises another question for me. So we're leasing King pool from the school district. Both King and West Campus. OK, but but we are paying for these infrastructure improvements. Correct. OK, that's part of our lease agreement. Is that right? Yeah. It's a no cost lease agreement. So we're not paying for the you know, we take care of the facility and operate. And, you know, it's a part of agreement that includes King Park, Thousand Oaks Park and both pools. OK. And the MLK facility next to Grove Park, that community center is also part of that lease. OK. OK, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Keefe. Thank you. My first question was about the King pool. So I think you answered most of it. I just want to clarify. OK, thank you. Are there under the current version of the proposal? Are there any improvements to be made to the locker room or the outside of the pool? Or is it just you're limiting it only to the repair of the concrete in the pump? Yeah, it's limited just to the pool envelope, not to the locker room. So no safety improvements or anything like that? OK, thank you. So there was some discussion about the removal of the Live Oak basketball courts from the list. And I was wondering if you could speak more to that. Was that the result of community feedback? Why was that decision made? There actually wasn't much. We thought was an important project, even from people in that district. But we would prefer that you spend your money elsewhere. As you know, that, you know, there's an open grass area that's not really it's you know, it's not it's not no irrigation in it. And the basketball courts, we get all kinds of complaints about the basketball courts and volleyball courts because they slam down. And so this this proposal would have leveled that created kind of a smaller underage soccer field there. But there wasn't a whole lot of community support for it. And as we needed to whittle down our projects to get into the 300 million dollars. That was one that we didn't that fell off the list. OK, thank you. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor Trager. Thank you. No, we have discussed the reductions to improvements to to historic buildings in downtown Berkeley. But for the benefit of the public, could you speak a little bit more to how the new proposal would work with respect to the grant match and perceived probability of still receiving the grant? I'll let you take that one. So based on our data, the full amount for the seismic upgrades at the old city hall would be approximately 14 million dollars. And at the veterans building, it's about six point seven million dollars. And that's just seismic upgrades. There is a FEMA grant that we are aiming for and strategically we're aiming to. The goal is to match city funds to be able to leverage the FEMA grant that's coming up and use the resources and the funding for other more system safety, public safety facilities as funding is very limited. So that was a strategy there. Yeah. And then two more questions, I think. So on the site, three more questions. I think this one is for Carrie on the project evaluation methodology under green resiliency and sustainability. Did that factor in the recommendation from the Environmental and Climate Commission to make buildings zero net energy slash electric? Yes. So I can you hear me? Okay. Okay. So for the methodology, so we we looked at the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission report and then also the Environmental Commission report as well. So what you'll notice in the methodology for green resiliency and sustainability, that's something with in addition to accessibility. That's something that we made an effort to try and incorporate in many of the projects were feasible for green resiliency and sustainability. That's where we have very specific criteria for what it captures and what it doesn't capture. One thing that I want to note is, you know, we have some notes in here around important guardrails. So just because sustainability features are woven into many projects, that doesn't necessarily mean we have to score them highly. But is it something like with the fire facilities, ensuring that we have solar backup generators, is that right? All electric, you know, that's where it would receive a high score or for the native plant median conversions. That's where it would receive a high score. Whereas things that are more traditional sort of HVAC improvements and things of that nature. That's where clearly it wouldn't receive a high score. I hope I answered your question. Oh, yeah. Enough that, yeah, I think I have a better understanding. On the Harrison Field Torf conversion, I know this Astro Torf has come up at public meetings. And I understand that what you're proposing is perhaps a different kind of Astro Torf that is more environmentally friendly. Could you speak to that and maybe just a suggestion to be very specific about how the word Astro Torf is used, given its connotation? Yeah, so Astro Torf kind of refers to a different product that is essentially all polycarbons and rubber. The product that we would be putting in at Harrison is very similar to the product we would be putting, except an upgraded version at Tom Bates that we have now. It's a plastic stem with a cork base. Initially, what we installed at Tom Bates was very traditional, where you see everywhere is that kind of plastic stem with the black rubber pedals. And in 2018, we switched to a different subsurface. We added a concussion subsurface, and we added a different plastic stem and a cork base. And so there are a variety of trends out there now amongst a lot of these turf soccer fields that we would evaluate. Some of them are moving towards walnut-based infield. It doesn't float like the cork does. So if you go out there on rainy days, you'll see some of our cork floating away, and the walnuts don't float like that. But in the industry now, there's some problems with youth and adults with nut allergies. And so we would do the research that we needed to do to have the most up-to-date product that would be the most environmentally friendly product that we would install in Berkeley. Great. Thank you. And my last question, and this might be for perhaps David, and the questions have, well, let's say the combined levy of approximately $44 for $100,000 of assessed value over 41 years. Could you speak to approximately what that might mean to the median homeowner? So the median assessed value that we observed when we brought forward the December report was $550,000. So applying that and $44 would be $242 a year. Thank you. Yes. And Council Member Bacovey? Great. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just to pick up on that point, because I actually had a question about that also on that chart about the overall, the bond analysis and the addendus. And I appreciate the look at it just by bond. What might be helpful moving forward before we kind of do the final implementation, I think most residents don't think of just the city bond part of this separate. They think about the total tax bill. They think about all the parcel taxes, the stuff that comes from the school district, the things that come from the county. So I think the right context for this is not just the city's bond indebtedness and what this is costing the residents from just that portion, but the overall tax bill. I know that's hard. And we've talked about that in the past. So in December, we did a fiscal year 26 model of the property tax, but I think for Berkeley is about $10,924 for a $550,000 median home at 1,900 square feet. And in looking, this is a $100 million bond every five years based on analysis. If we did $100 million in 2027, that would add an additional $16 per 100,000. So you could add that to the $10,900 to get the total tax bill based on fiscal year 26. Looking at fiscal year 27 is obviously unknown to us. There are a number of parcel taxes on the ballot. So we could model something out depending upon which ones you think may pass. But looking at fiscal year 26, that would be the impact. Right. So I guess, yes, you're saying, again, and the 242 is in the context of the median bill, which is already what you say, the median total. The median assessed value is $550,000, and that's over the course of, that's the average over 40 years. And just when we look at the immediate $100 million, it's obviously a lot less. Got it. But that portion of the overall tax bill is also, again, thinking of it in those terms. For the median average person, their average annual property tax bill with all of the other bells and whistles comes out to something like. It was $10,924, your total tax bill, fiscal year 26. So you're talking about 242 on top of 10,000, again, which puts that in perspective. Again, no one wants to pay more taxes, but there's already a $10,000 nut between the property tax and everything else that we're talking about. So this is, incrementally, it's something, but it's not the biggest driver, that number. Yes, but to be really clear, because we'd only do $100 million in 2027, we'd actually only add $16 per 100,000. We wouldn't add the 242. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Question for the city manager. I know we've talked about this in the past, but just to confirm. If we do embark on this infrastructure measure and it passes, and we then have sort of these projects on our plate, knowing that we've got a super talented management team, but they're also managing a lot of day-to-day work, how do you foresee, how do we staff this, execute this, make sure that we do all the oversight? And all of the work on these infrastructure projects, at the level of quality we expect, how would you staff it and organize it? Yeah, it's a good question. As the staff mentioned, we did build into this, into the measure, costs to add staffing. Obviously, we'd have to have more staff to run a $300 million bond project over these years. And so, we haven't come up with exactly what the staffing model would look like, but we've built in the additional costs to add staff to run the measure. Whether that is done sort of like T1, where part of it was done in parks and part of it was done in public works, or whether we created a separate standalone capital projects division to run it all, we haven't just made that decision yet. But, you know, those are the things we're talking about. Okay. And there are other cities we can also borrow from in terms of best practices and look at? There are, and we have also for previous ones. Great. Thank you. When do we need to finalize the list of projects? Does that have to happen before we go to the ballot, or this list that we're kind of negotiating between and what's on and what's off? Yeah, we want to finalize the list before we go to the ballot, but I also want to be clear that we're not saying that this is, that there can be no flexibility on this list for moving spending around, because we know that there will be no flexibility.

Segment 4

Segment 5

The Berkeley City Council meeting of the Berkeley City Council. I would like to start by saying that the current building constitutes a 7.7 fold reduction. If there was a way, because as much as I would love to see FEMA provide matching grants under this Trump administration, I am just not confident in anything. I would love to see FEMA line up a little bit for both of these buildings. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council member Humbert. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. And in the interest of brevity, I had a whole list of thank yous to individuals, but I would just want to, you know, in one ball of wax, thank you for everyone who worked on this. Filing this list of projects and estimating costs was a huge lift and something I know stood on the shoulders of past work and past bond efforts, so I want to express my deep gratitude for everyone who has brought us to this place. I want to thank our consultant who performed the polling, who's done really good work for us this time and in the past. I think the project list is in very good shape, so I don't have other than one substantive comment about that at this time. I'm really happy about the proposal to fully fund the 50-50 sidewalk program. I think it's critical in terms of public safety. It was one of the first referrals that I brought when I joined council was to fully fund it, got lost in the budget process, and I'm glad it's reappearing here. I do understand that people may feel a little uncertain, given that we've seen some decreases in the second set of polling, but I think we're still at a decent level. All told, I feel we're ready to move forward with both the sales tax measure and the general obligation bond as proposed. Thanks again, and I'm going to support the pending motion. Thank you very much. Councilmember Casarwani? Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Thank you again, Director Farris, Acting Director Amiri, and Chief Sprague for the information you provided. Thank you, Mr. White. Thank you, Carrie. Ms. Arredondo, am I pronouncing your last name correctly? Okay, I just want to make sure I do that. Like Councilmember Hubbard, I want to thank everyone for all the work. There was a lot of community input that went into the project list that we have before us today, so I want to express gratitude for those meetings that occurred and the members of the public that provided input. I did want to just highlight some particular projects that were really important to me as one of the two representatives of West Berkeley. One, the Francis Albrier Community Center. I think that's very important for that center to be seismically retrofitted and to be a modern facility for West Berkeley and San Pablo Park. I also want to note all of the restroom improvements happen to be in District 1. I'm calling it the North Waterfront Park now at the marina. That's really a citywide amenity, and we hear all the time. People are appreciating the throne bathroom that is there, but our goal is to have a permanent bathroom there, so I'm really pleased to see that. Of course, really pleased to see all of the important marina infrastructure improvements that are here, the seawall. There's a climate resilience element to this that I think is very important, and I must do a nod to the advocates for the soccer players. Harrison Field is also in District 1, and I would love to see that get upgraded with the artificial turf. Also, the West Berkeley Family Wellness Center is in District 1 as well, and that is in need of improvement. We've been able to address the North Berkeley Senior Center, the South Berkeley Senior Center. This is another center that we have that we would like to improve. Then, like Council Member Humbert, the 50-50 sidewalk program is very important. We have so many bumpy sidewalks that are a hazard for people of all ages and abilities. As the birthplace of the disability rights movement, we really need to make sure all of our sidewalks are accessible for people who may use mobility assistance devices. We had those three fire infrastructure improvements. I'm not trying to single out Station 4. I know a lot has been said about Station 4. I know we're going to talk about it a lot at the budget. Just because it was a very significant dollar amount, Chief, it would be helpful to get a breakdown. I don't know if you can speak to it now. I know you talked about the carcinogenic apparatus, and maybe that's a conversation we can continue to have. I'd just like to understand better how we arrive at the $54 million. You bet. We have detailed analysis in the Fire Facilities Master Plan that was conducted by fire station architects and then priced out by contractors and then escalated to $2030, I believe. I'm sorry, it escalated. Then, the cost was escalated from $2023 to $2030. Okay. I can go back to that document and understand better the breakdown. I'll send you the relevant sections. Thank you. That sounds like a long document. It would be helpful to have that. For the public, too, if we get questions, I'd like to have that information. I did want to just speak briefly to the concern. I think maybe some of my colleagues are feeling, I know members of the public may be feeling, the number of revenue measures that voters are potentially going to see on the ballot. I do just want to state that it's actually very inspiring that we have citizens gathering signatures to put measures on the ballot for various causes that they believe are important. That effort is not under the council's control. There's the arts tax, the public bank, the public transit measure. These are other entities, other people who are doing that. Of course, we do have to think about how that may impact what we are trying to do. I think ultimately, given where the polling results were this time, that I think we should still proceed. I didn't see any reason not to proceed with our plans, but to go into it with the awareness that there is going to be fatigue. I think this is a tough economy for people, so there needs to be a positive message around both measures. I think there's a lot of really important, critical projects to emphasize for the infrastructure bond. I think some of this, the costs will escalate. The chief just spoke about escalating 2023 costs to 2026 dollars. The longer we wait, the larger the bill is going to be. That's true for most of our infrastructure. I think we need to emphasize those points. Okay, I just almost said, I did want to just address the costs. I think Council Member Tregub asked about the costs. I just want to note the bond measure is 22 dollars and 14 cents per 100,000 dollars of home value. I know those new homeowners that were trying to create new home ownership opportunities for you, if you bought a home this year for 1.5 million, if you do that math, 22 dollars and 14 cents by 15, 1500 thousands, that's 332 dollars and 10 cents per year. People who bought earlier, who bought at a lower price, are going to be less than that. We are aware of that number. I want the public to be aware of that number. It's not nothing, but relative to the entire tax bill, we have to think about it that way. Some of the bonds that are going to be expiring, I think you talked about. Finally, on the sales tax measure, I did want to say, I know we're not finalizing the ballot language tonight, but I think that final language should reflect our budget plan. I think maybe we're going to finalize the language in June, so maybe we'll have a better exact sense of our budget, because we've been talking about restoring public safety positions, critical programs operated by the Recreation and Parks Department. I think those are the programs that we should highlight and not talk about other things that are not in our plan. I want the public to know what the plan is, how those funds would be used. That's all. Thank you so much for indulging me and I'm very eager to support the motion. Thank you. Again, apologies for folks who have just walked in. We're still finishing our special meeting from before. We will go over to Councilmember Dinapara. Thank you. I just have some brief comments. I really want to thank everyone who has put in the time and effort into this. I support, both as written, I support the amount that has been allocated. I really appreciate the addition of the Dwight Triangle project in this. That's very exciting. It has been in the works for a long time. With the goal of a car-free telegraph in the future, it will be a perfect end node to it. Thank you very much. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bartlett. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, too, want to thank you all for your work. This is quite an expansive list, very complicated, and put together in two different buckets of finance that are each also somewhat complex. According to the poll, I know Mr. Berman's work is fantastic. According to the poll, it looks somewhat promising, so we will cross our fingers and support this going forward. I do support the motion. Thank you. A couple of things I want to call out I'm really excited about and a couple of notes. The Adeline Open Space, very exciting. This, of course, is part of the reparative framework we've undertaken the last number of years with regard to these public finance tools and the districts. You know, when the underground at BART, most people don't know this, when the underground at BART, they were supposed to make a park to go all the way across the city. Instead, they made a loaning park in North Berkeley, but they made asphalt in South Berkeley. This is a great effort to restore that and give us a beautiful park greenway. I'm excited about that. The Senior Center, wonderful, the HVAC upgrade. I'm wondering if there's a possibility of shoehorning a bit more work into that project as it was rehabilitated under T1, as was North Berkeley Senior Center, but North Berkeley Senior Center happened to get a really beautiful cosmetic upgrade, whereas we did not in South Berkeley. So it would be great if we could maybe shoehorn a little bit more in there to give it a similar look to what we've got in North Berkeley. That would be wonderful. And, of course, very happy for the saga of the African American Holistic Resource Center to be coming to a funding close. Now we're excited about this. Very supportive. And that's it. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. Council Member Blackaby. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Everyone has said so many things. I'll be extremely brief. Again, thanks to city staff for their heavy lifting and all the community engagement that's gone into this process. Thanks also to David Mermin for his research support to help inform some of these decisions. Just three kind of sets of projects I wanted to call out. One, again, I agree with Council Member Trageub that to the extent we can find a way to augment some of the funding, the Civic Center, safety improvements around Old City Hall and the Veterans Building, we would love to figure out a way to do that within the overall portfolio. Second, as the dad of two young soccer players, I'm really glad to see the upgrades at Harrison Field. And, Scott, I'll say the other thing about the cork is it really gets in your shoes. And so I don't know if there's a better material, if the walnut's better, but it's really painful. But anyway, upgrading Harrison Field so it's more accessible more of the year is fantastic. Third, certainly from a District 6 perspective, the 50-50 sidewalk program, extremely important. We have so many deteriorating, if not non-existent, sidewalks in the hills. The more we can do around safety and infrastructure for folks who are walking, biking, not on the sidewalk, but next to the sidewalk, and just using the street infrastructure up there is really important. So I appreciate seeing that. The last overall comment, I think in this whole process, we've been – and I, again, appreciate the transparency through all of this and the public engagement. And I think it's really incumbent on all of us as a council and as a city team to demonstrate continued transparency and accountability, both in order to get these revenue measures passed and then to ensure their successful delivery. I think that's something we've all heard time and again, that, again, ensuring we have trust of the public, that they have confidence in these plans and in what we're delivering is really, really important to me. I authored an item earlier this year with supportive colleagues to, again, set clear goals and metrics around the goals that we're trying to implement as a city. So, again, heading into fall, I think the more we can do heading into November and then beyond to show that kind of discipline, setting really clear goals, measuring those goals, and being accountable to what we said we're going to do and then delivering it. Again, it's good for showing voters that they can trust us with their hard-earned dollars, and then it's really important to actually delivering the work. So I thank staff for this, and I also support the motion and look forward to these moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Council Member O'Keefe. I think I'm last. Oh, the Mayor's last. Thank you very much. You know, I want to say something. I second almost everything that was said, I think everything that was said, especially thanking all of the work that went into this. I do have kind of just something I want to name, which is that we're talking about two different revenue measures here, and I'm happy to support the motion. I think we should move forward with both of them. But the sales tax measure for me, like if I had to choose between them, the sales tax measure would be the one I would choose. I feel like if we didn't pass it, the results would be catastrophic to what we have now, whereas the bond is a lot of really important stuff that would be really wonderful to have. But if I felt like the two were sort of in contention with each other, I think I might have a little more reluctance to support this. However, I'm saying that because I want to say that I'm really heartened by the results of the survey and learning that the numbers that we saw were actually in the context of all the other measures, and even when these two measures specifically were side by side, it actually arguably helped rather than didn't make a difference. That makes me feel a lot better about supporting both, which feels a little scary and risky to me. But I think it's okay. Let's go for it. That's it. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. I want to start by just thanking all of you for the presentation this evening. There's so many city staff out here, so I also just want to thank all of you, because I know so much of your work and your feedback and your number crunching and your experiences go into these presentations and also all the work that was done in the community outreach. So thank you all very much. I also want to thank the Realize 2050 Task Force that was meeting in this last year to work on updating Vision 2050 and working also with Councilmember Taplin and Traigub and myself to make sure that we were really focused on bringing this bond measure forward in the first place. I think that's incredibly essential. I'm glad you highlighted that, Councilmember O'Keefe, because it is important to acknowledge that there are two different things that we're talking about here, and I also see the real serious opportunity for success with both of them moving forward together. And so that is very exciting to me. I want to acknowledge some of the comments that were made, specifically from the folks who were talking about the Veterans Building and Old City Hall, to just say, yes, of course, we know those buildings are being used. And I'm very aware of the programs that are going on there and how important they are in our community, both the history, but also, of course, Berkeley Community Media, which is responsible for streaming our meetings that we have here. That is their home and Dorothy Day House options, et cetera. And I want to say that, yeah, I mean, I was very excited for the results of the first poll. So I do have to say I was a bit disappointed to see the numbers going down there, but that hasn't made me feel that it's not possible. And so, you know, I will be working hard to make sure that these pass to help continue the support that we need for our city. I want to also mention, second, what Councilmember Blackaby was saying about accountability and oversight. That is incredibly important. Many of you know that my background is with the League of Women Voters and a lot of my work has been around, you know, making sure that we are transparent and accountable, that we are transparent and accountable government. And so as mayor, that's also very important to me. I want to mention also that the tax burden that folks were talking about, it's folks like me that are lucky enough to have a newer home that are going to pay a lot more of this tax burden. And I am still very supportive of it because I know how much benefit that brings to people around the city. It's incredibly challenging for those of you who are not involved to take a look at all these districts across the city, looking at equity and safety and climate change to think about all these different projects. Just I know that there was so much work that went into it. So I just want to make sure you know that I really see that work and how hard and challenging it was. I had an intern or staff or both at all of the community meetings, and I know that you all continue to improve that process and make sure you were getting really strong community engagement. So thank you very much again to the staff. I am supportive of both items and I'd like to move us forward for the vote. So can we take the roll on that, please? OK, to approve the staff recommendation to prepare the ballot language for the 300 million dollar general obligation bond and also the ballot language for the 0.5 percent increase in the sales and use tax for the November 3rd, 2026 ballot. On the motion, Council Member Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Ritchie? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Kunipara? Yes. Humber? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. OK, motion carries. Very good. So I would like to see if there's a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. OK, is there any opposition to adjournment? OK, we are adjourned by unanimous consent. Don't leave yet.