Good morning.

Good morning and welcome to the rules and legislation committee meeting on this Thursday, June 25th.

The time is now ten thirty-one, and this meeting shall come to order.

Before I call roll, I would like to give instructions on how to submit a speaker card for items on this agenda.

If you are here in chambers and um participating in person and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill out a card and hand it in to the clerk representative before the item is called into record or ten minutes after this meeting began.

This meeting began at ten thirty-one, so that time will be ten forty-one.

So we will no longer be accepting online speaker cards.

But again, if you would like to submit a speaker card and you're here in person, please fill out a card turn into a clerk representative ten minutes after the meeting began, which is ten forty-one or before the item is called into record, whichever one comes first.

With that, I will now begin with roll on roll council member brown.

Present.

Council Member Five, present.

Council Member Ramachandra.

Ramachandra.

Present.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um the announcement was per the chair.

We will go in this order.

We will uh take item two first, and then we will text items five and six, and then the consent calendar following that.

Thank you for that.

So we will now move to item our first item.

We don't have minutes to approve.

Our second item is determination of scheduling outstanding committee items, which is your pending list.

I have no speakers for this item.

I just need a motion.

Anything from the administration, no changes.

Seeing that, I'll answer the motion.

Second.

Seconded by Council Member Ramachandren to approve item two as is on roll, Councilmember Brown.

Council Member Five.

Aye.

Ramachandrin.

Aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Item number two is approved with four eyes as is.

Now taking the agenda out of order as requested by Chair Jenkins, going to item number five.

Item number five is a resolution confirming the mayor's reappointment of um Alvina Wong as a member to the Board of Port and Commissions, and I have no speakers for this item.

All right.

Can we hear from uh Port Mayor's Office and the Board Commissioner?

Good afternoon, Chair Jenkins, Council members, President Kilboard, Deputy Chief of Staff and Mayor Barbara Lee.

So I'm here to present on the reappointment of Alvina Wong to the Port Commission for reappointment.

Alvina brings nearly two decades of experience advancing social, environmental, and economic justice with a strong track record track record of building multiracial coalitions and advocating for equitable development, environmental justice, housing, and community centered policy solutions.

During Alvina's service on the port commission, she has brought thoughtful leadership, a collaborative approach, and a deep commitment to balancing economic economic opportunity with community and environmental priorities.

The mayor continues to be confident that Alvina's experience, perspective, and dedication to Oakland will continue to be a valuable asset to the commission.

We respectfully request your support for her reappointment.

Thank you.

Commissioner, did you want to say anything?

Good morning, committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all and share more about my reappointment.

As I was able to introduce myself more last year as the base building director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network APEN, a proud district six resident and a member of D6 Community Action for Resilience and Equity, D6 Care, living a mile away from Coliseum off the 880 corridor.

When I spoke last year, I really wanted to express to you all my values, my experience, and my commitments in my environmental justice and community work thus far to gain your confidence in confirming my appointment to the board.

And I appreciate you all for advancing that confirmation in order to fulfill the last uh final year of former Commissioner Yuhei Lee's term.

So today I'm back for uh to ask for your confidence again for a full term on the Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners.

In this past year, I have been dedicated, collaborative and inquisitive member of the commission focused on really the prosperity and responsibilities of the port, as well as participating in continuing its commitment and excellence in being a good community partner and economic driver for Oakland and the region.

Over the past year, I have engaged in many critical real estate, airport, seaport related decisions that really center the possibilities of sustainable growth, both in the economic and environmental sense.

I've joined the audit committee as well as airport and environmental ad hoc committees and have dove into this work what I'd like to say heart first.

It's been quite a lot to pick up a year uh within a year.

And while I think my colleagues would agree that I've been able to keep up, a full term would really allow me to continue supporting the port's efforts in zero admission transition, maintaining and growing our airport and seaport opportunities while also meaningfully choosing real estate and contracting decisions that are exponentially beneficial for and rooted in Oakland and beyond.

So I'm excited to continue my partnership with you all in the city.

I've had really great conversations and want to continue to make sure that what's happening on the port is uh coordinated and thoughtful to what is happening in the city and making sure that your concerns are also reflected in the port's conversations.

And so I am open and available for any other questions if you may have and really want to continue looking forward to thought partnership and collaborative problem solving with you all.

So I'd be honored to have your continued support.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Brown.

Excellent.

Um, well, thank you so much.

It's good to see you.

And it's been a pleasure for the last year really getting to know you more and learn more about your leadership style and just the work that you're doing with the port.

And so I'm happy to make a motion to go ahead and advance the appointment.

Thank you, Councilmember Fife.

Yes, just my my knowledge uh through the chair to uh Alvina Wong with your acumen around environment, our work around crematoriums in East Oakland, um, truck traffic through West Oakland and Chinatown, and just your your broad depth of knowledge around environmental issues is so critical to bring to the port of Oakland.

And as I work through amortization of polluters in in my district, and working on continuing to green and clean the port, it's essential that you remain in this space to bring your unique experience, your youth, and um just your expertise in very specific issues to this body.

So I've been happy to recommend your position and I second this motion to make sure that you stay in the place that you're at and continue to grow and learn for the Port of Oakland and for the city.

Thank you.

Seems like we uh I support you.

Um we have a motion and the second.

Thank you for that.

And there was a motion by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Council Member Fife to approve item five um to be for uh proof item five, which is uh the uh reappointment to the board of porting commissioners um to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent on roll council member brown aye council member Fife, aye council member Ramachandran, aye and Chair Jenkins, aye item number five was approved with four ayes to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent, noting that the agenda has been taken out of order, so we are now moving there.

For no, not for this item, no, so many people last time.

Yes, no, I do not have speakers for this item.

Uh, but we do have speakers for the next item, which is item S6 as stated by Council President uh Jenkins.

We are taking the agenda out of order, so we are now on item S6, and I will read that into record.

But before I read the item into record, there is an urgency finding that would need to be stated um before we hear this item.

So is staff present to state the urgency finding.

Yes, of course, through the chair, just the urgency is that the upcoming deadline to appear on the November ballot is coming up, and so a hearing now and then scheduling for July 7th is recommended in order to make that deadline.

Is there a presentation?

We do need a motion for the urgency finding before we call the item into moved.

I'll second it.

And there was a motion by council member five, seconded by council member brown to approve the urgency finding on role council member.

Aye.

Councilmember Fife.

Aye.

Rama Chandrin.

Aye.

Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

I uh the urgency finding was approved with four eyes.

I will now read the item into record.

Adopt a resolution submitting to the voters at the November 3rd, 2026 general municipal election, a measure to amend OMC charter real property tax transfer tax to amend the exemption of foreclosures transactions and an advisory measure of whether the increased revenue from the amending the city real property transfer tax to include certain foreclosure transactions should be spent for the purposes of providing interim shelter, transitional housing, encampment closure operations, addiction treatment, job readiness, and other related homelessness services, and directing the city clerk to take any and all action necessary under the law to submit these measures to the voters at the general municipal election and making appropriate CEQA findings.

I have two speakers for this item.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn to a special uh meeting of the council upon the presence of yes, councilmember Wong and Houston.

Second, there was a motion by council member Fife, seconded by Councilmember Brown to adjourn in a special meeting at the with the presence of councilmember Wong and Houston on role council member Brown.

Aye.

Fife, aye.

Aye.

Rama Chandrin, aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

And the uh at 1043, this uh meeting is adjourned into a special meeting at the presence of council members.

And I am complete.

Councilmember.

Okay.

All right.

Um first of all I want to thank before we get into it I just want to thank the finance team specifically Nicole, Bradley, Carmen, Jose, and uh Huey, in terms of um developing out the materials that we're that you're seeing today.

I also want to thank uh Malia at the city attorney's office uh with who worked with us to craft this measure uh through quite a few iterations um and I also want to recognize since I provided a larger or lengthier presentation last time to my colleagues really explaining some of the impetus around this there are a number of questions last time that were really around the revenue the potential for revenue from this measure so this is what really what today's presentation is aimed to answer.

I also want to note that today's measure is narrow than what I last presented I'll be um I'm requesting a motion to also forward this resolution to the full council as amended which includes the removal of the supplementary advisory measure which I heard my colleagues feedback.

That means that no additional costs would be incurred from a second measure and that means there's no endorsement of some of what I discussed around shelters or uh encampment closures.

So this is now purely before you a revenue measure.

It closes a loophole on these foreclosure transactions it does not raise any tax rates and it simply closes an exception and an exception that is really uh for primarily uh corporate capital um that exception says that foreclosure transfers uh that foreclosure transfers is particularly deed and loo transfers uh are exempt from paying the real real estate transfer tax that any other you know transfer would pay so your person that's just buying a home and they purchase a home they are paying this real estate transfer tax that these uh entities are not uh I would also argue that there's a case for urgency foreclosures are currently surging uh there are signs of a recessionary environment and we know that this will accelerate foreclosures in the coming years but that is anticipated to tail off and the reason I do present it this before this body now is if we do wait until 2028 we risk missing missing a window for this cycle I also want to note that San Francisco is actually moving to act before this window closes.

They're moving forward with a November ballot measure um and their estimate and this was done by their comptroller's office is actually estimated to generate over 200 million dollars in revenue over the next three years and and you know in Oakland we do not have exactly the same real estate market of course we don't have as much uh commercial real estate in particular but this shows that there is real and significant money behind this concept I also want to speak directly to the informational packet that you're provided in the supplemental report um it's really important to flag right off the bat uh that this was uh what you see here and if you guys got um some of the materials sorry clerk uh there's a spreadsheet an amendment as well as a spreadsheet so um one is the one of the staff reports included included a basically a projection that was based off of limited a limited sample through 2024 um just February through July.

So it's a very limited data set.

There's an important gap that did not account for something called deed in lieu of transfer.

These are really actually the highest revenue generating transfers available.

And so uh my team throughout the last week actually worked to identify a set of these types of deed and lieu foreclosure transfers.

These are basically just to be clear, because we do not, we do not have the kind of data scrapers that are available, you know, by real estate, you know, by the real estate industry.

So this is based off of essentially what is in just the headlines.

Okay, so what is in posted in news articles, things like that.

Um I want to just note in front of you these are unedited Excel sheets provided straight from finance.

Uh, we pulled out uh some of the top line numbers just to display above here on the screen.

You can see, for example, in 2024, there were, again, four headlining, four headline generating transfers.

What you see on the right side of screen is essentially the tax revenue that could have been generated, the low end to the high end.

So just taking 180 granted example on the low end, and finance is happy to discuss their methodology, 750,000 uh dollars generated from that revenue, but on the high end, 4.3 million dollars.

So this is again just over the last two and a half years.

Uh, we identified 16 different transactions happening over the last two and a half years.

Uh, and I think one thing that is really noteworthy is that if you look at 2026 in particular, you can see that revenue is accelerating.

This speaks to the increases happening in foreclosures in this current year.

This is just half a year alone.

This only reflects uh foreclosures that are happening through June of this year.

Um, what is not actually included is the Clorox building that is currently uh that made a recent headline that is also going into foreclosure.

And using just, this is the low end uh the sample of these properties.

You can see that this goes in 2024, five million, two thousand twenty-five six million, but in just half a year alone, January through June, it would have been it could have been something as uh high as 16.49 million.

I actually had another slide, but it's not included in this particular presentation, so uh, but anyways, this matches up what we're seeing in terms of the headlines that we are seeing foreclosures at a six-year high.

This was noted by the Wall Street Journal.

Uh, other headlines that are more local that note this rise in foreclosures and fire sales.

Uh there was just what happened at uh in East Oakland, a another office uh just went into foreclosure.

Um I also want to just discuss some of the amendments very quickly.

So here are the amendments you guys have them before you.

So as I stated, we're removing the advisory measure.

So it's just simplifying what was presented last time, and I want to thank colleagues for the feedback.

Uh second, um, I do want to add affordable housing uh conversion and exemption.

I had noted last time that because we're seeing all these uh, especially in the downtown core, right?

People are not returning to to off to the office, and so we're seeing a lot of these major commercial buildings go into foreclosure.

So part of what we're doing with this tax policy is to try to incentivize conversion into other uses that would actually be beneficial to Oakland.

So there was interim shelter, permanent supportive housing, uh health care, as well as we're just adding affordable housing as an exemption based off some feedback from some discussions with stakeholders, and so if you get a foreclosure transfer, just to explain it and you turn it to affordable housing, this would not apply to that specific transfer.

The third thing is we're giving city council the authority to establish future exemptions by ordinance.

That way, if there are other types of exemptions that we identify as a body, we don't have to restart the ballot measure process.

We can do this just by ordinance.

Um fourth, this was just an advice from the city attorney's office.

Uh we are going to be moving to exempt all community banks, not just California-based ones.

This was uh based off of some law that's on the books that um Malia, thank you for identifying that.

Uh and the fifth thing is that the measure is going to it just adds a line that this measure determines the value of consideration at fair market value, and this is drawing directly from San Francisco's structure and their own measure that they adopted, which I do want to note that the measure adopted by San Francisco was broadly supported by both moderate and progressive um supervisors in San Francisco.

Okay.

And with that, I'll turn it over to any questions you have for myself or to the staff members who helped develop this proposal.

Thank you, partner.

Uh let's go to the public speakers.

Thank you for that.

Um as I call your name.

If you're here in chambers, please approach the podium.

If you are participating online, please raise your hand if you signed up for item S6.

Um I have Robert Um Apatica and Dan Cobb.

Uh, we will take those who are participating in person first, and then following that, we will take those who are online.

So again, if you signed up for item S6.

Thank you.

Good morning, community members.

Uh, my name is Robert Joe Alpadaka.

I've been a resident of Oakland for the last 40 years and uh started speaking here in 1975 when um the um community development block grant was the big issue, and and there was uh uh no room in the council to address those issues.

At that time, I was chairman of the Fruitville Community Development District Council.

I've uh have uh quite a bit of experience in housing and and uh housing related issues, both as uh operator and as a builder, and also uh providing finance.

Just briefly, I started my first student housing program in Berkeley in 1970, and that operation that's for ethnic minorities is still in operation after 56 years, and it's a nonprofit organization now owned by the Green Lightning Institute.

Subsequent to that, I was part of a I founded a nonprofit and wanted to prove a concept that um poor people can be homeowners.

So in Fresno County, we built 10 town homes uh and sold them to families who are earning less than 30 percent of AMI, and nobody had defaulted during that time.

One home has been sold, and the and uh and and all those families are have a lot of equity.

Lastly, I was uh part of uh McLaren Boston's EmSIC, an architect here in town that did its first project.

Uh Durant Square signature properties is the or was the owner is the owner.

Uh subsequent to that, we designed the Fruitville Transit Village, and then across the street from here, a couple of blocks from here, uh the firm uh did uh uptown apartments.

So I know something about housing and financing.

Umelessness is the number one priority in the state.

I know it changes from time to time, but it's a number high priority here in Oakland.

And what I do know is that over the past 10, 15 years, the state has spent over 37.

I apologize, Robert.

Your time is up.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I will now call those who are participating online, Zoom speakers.

I have Dan Cobb.

One moment.

Um if the clerk can unmute Dan Cobb.

There we go.

Dan, you are unmuted.

You may uh begin.

Thank you so much.

Uh good to see you all.

Let me just uh good to see you all.

Um I just wanted to express my uh thanks to Councilmember Wong for putting this forward.

Uh we passed uh Measure X back in 2018 uh to create a progressive real estate transfer tax, and uh this kind of uh in some respects closes a loophole in that.

And within the limits of state law, this provides more opportunity to uh bring some more revenue in and make sure the transfer tax that already exists in in local law uh applies to these these additional transactions within the confines of state law.

So I urge support for this.

And I think this is a smart measure, and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

That concludes our speakers for item S.

Colleagues.

Oh excellent.

I can go ahead and get started.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Wong for your work on this item.

And also calling attention to what San Francisco is doing as well.

I was reading the article really quickly.

So thanks for highlighting that as well.

One of the questions that I did have the opportunity to ask you during our one-on-one, where you were explaining this a little bit further, and I was kind of continuing to do a little bit more research on this, and just hoping you can answer uh this question.

Um, because you know, I guess I'm thinking about larger apartment buildings and really wanting to ensure that we're protecting renters from any undue costs and even just building maintenance.

And so I guess this this larger question that I have is um have you been able to identify or call out any like domino impacts of um this um kind of foreclosure tax that would go to a new owner of a larger apartment building, whether it be um since they're gonna be kind of eating up those that costs, will that you know trickle to the renter in some way?

What will happen to maybe if the building needs maintenance um and and yeah, just wanted to see if you were able to get any feedback on, and I think I even asked this question to you when we met.

I'm just curious if you had any more additional insights on that.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I uh just in the development of this policy, did consult uh individuals in both the uh housing action coalition uh which group uh as well as uh uh the um Turner Center, as well as that uh excuse me, the YMB uh various EMB groups that we all know about, including East Bay for everyone, um and uh essentially when it comes to the question, which is a really great question.

I want to flag that in terms of whether those costs could be passed down uh to renters because essentially this cost in terms of the transfer tax would ultimately be borne on the acquiring entity, right?

Not the entity that's going into foreclosure.

Uh this this is how this will actually protect people from that are the tenants from going into foreclosure.

And I would argue this too, because what is happening with foreclosures is that right now, since this is a loophole, there's actually an there is no disincentive for the banks to pursue a short sale or to prevent a foreclosure from happening in the first place.

Um there's no tax friction.

So when that happens, actually people are more likely, the tenants are more likely to get evicted if that makes sense in the case of a foreclosure.

And so um one could argue that actually by applying this policy, we're actually creating some friction that can hopefully create it's not gonna solve.

I don't want to pretend like it's suddenly gonna prevent affix evictions, but that it'll create some disincentives from pursuing the foreclosure in the first place from the bank's perspective.

Excellent.

Um, thank you so much um for that.

Um, and I also know that the report states that the council may may by ordinance establish other exemptions to the tax imposed by this chapter.

Um, what other exemptions would council want to establish?

I'll give an example.

One thing that we've heard feedback from is that uh there are, for example, um, of like nonprofits that want to acquire, for example, like a foreclosed home or a small foreclosed um, you know, multifamily unit property and actually turn it into affordable housing.

And so it's these things that I think uh I I have added that amendment that way we can consider as a body other examples of where we actually this is an opportunity to create um tax equity and actually ensure that some of the entities we want to actually sure have a tax benefit compared to say maybe a corporate you know entity that we can add those in as a body.

Okay, thank you.

I am just sorry, just to close off my comment.

Uh I've heard about you know, for example, uh creating community land trusts, things like that.

So all of that I think should are items or things that we should consider to add in as exceptions.

Council member one's honor.

Thank you.

Um I think the intention is good and something that obviously I would want to support in theory when it comes to getting more revenue for the city and closing loopholes, but I think this presents too many loopholes the way it's presented right now that I don't really have confidence that the banks that were able to get this exemption in the first place, and other predatory lenders would not be able to use one of these exemptions.

So, um, can you explain the history of why the foreclosure exemption has the RETT exact the foreclosure situation has an RETT exemption in the first place?

And when that happens, yeah, that's a good question.

Does anyone from finance have that history?

I actually don't have that history.

Uh Malie McPherson with the city attorney's office.

I think your question is on the legislative history of the city's RETT, is that correct?

And the foreclosure exemption that's here.

This um exemption that currently exists has been there for as long as I can tell, it wasn't recently added, it wasn't addressed with the Measure X amendments.

It mirrors the exemption under the state documentary transfer tax, but is not identical in the same way that other local jurisdictions have an identical exemption for foreclosures that mirror state law, as you'll see with San Francisco's proposal, and has been clarified with recent case law on charter cities' ability to have different transfer tax compared to state law.

We are not bound to follow state law when it comes to foreclosure exemptions.

Thank you.

I mean, I'm really wondering from the author who wrote this, how are you know, why why did this first come into effect in Oakland, not the state?

And why are you why do you think that this is gonna be any different?

I mean, anyone can call themselves a community bank unless you're specifically listing a public bank, which is which is different, affordable housing.

Any bank can come in and say that they want to build affordable housing and then switch it up.

What are what are the guarantees that this won't happen again?

And that's why I'm asking about the history.

Okay, which as the author anticipate you'd know.

On the banks, there's actually a specific definition set at federal law that caps uh like to be defined as a community bank, you need to actually have assets under a certain dollar amount.

You can't, you can't like, for example, Chase or Goldman Sachs or any of these kind of large institutions could not just decide to define themselves as a community bank.

There's an actual definition.

I don't know if uh Malie you're able to comment on that, but uh I think I would need to double check my notes, but I think this was established under dot frank that there's a specific definition of community bank that must be used.

You can't just say I'm a community bank.

What about affordable housing?

The second part of my question through the chair.

Any of those same chases, Bank of America's et cetera, etc.

could say they're building affordable housing and then not actually fall through to get this exemption.

So once again, you're creating more loopholes, and the banks are never gonna pay.

So, what are what are the protections for that?

So the way that the uh transfer tax is currently structured is actually the you get a refund after the fact, and you would need to provide evidence.

And I mean, there are strict AMI rules, right?

In terms of affordable housing, you can't just say, you know, I'm building affordable housing.

You have to provide evidence that you're meeting the AMI requirements that define, you know, need like means tested affordable housing.

And if I I would actually invite my colleague, because we're adding this language around exemptions, if this is something important to you, which I agree with that we need to close these loopholes, that um I'm happy to work with you to really put in language.

This is the reason actually why I wanted that ordinance to add to make it broadly speaking.

Because I recognize that some of this is happening, um, we came across this loophole uh later in this year than I'd like than I'd like to have, and so I wanted to ensure this language would be added that way we as a body could really um figure out as a collective in uh removing as many loopholes as possible since I agree that is that is a risk.

I also think it's not a reason not to pursue the closing what we know to be in place, right?

When we can just continue to refine and add even more language to to truly seal off loopholes and ways that corporate entities seek and are able to escape escape our tax system.

Thank you through the chair.

That didn't answer my question.

I appreciate the invitation to work on this, but we are at the 11th hour before the meetings in July, which if this was to go through, this would need to pass.

So can you explain to me what's currently here in the legislation that would prevent a bank from stating they're gonna create build affordable housing and not build it?

And again, I would also like the definition of a community bank.

Sure, absolutely.

Um, Malia, are you able to comment on the definition of a community bank and then perhaps someone from the finance team since we have uh existing exemptions for uh, you know, low-income households, different things like that in our existing tax structure.

How is finance able to validate those things as it currently stands?

Uh Malia McPherson with the city attorney's office.

Um I'm happy to comment on the definition as it's been provided in the legislation.

I do want to note that the policy directives in terms of the scope of this legislation has been set by the council member's office.

So it is not, you know, our office that has been recommending certain exemptions here.

Uh, the community banking organization is as defined by the Federal Reserve, and as the council member noted, that current definition has an organization that has a total consolidated assets of less than 10 billion dollars, and under the draft legislation, the transferee to qualify for this exemption would have to provide a sworn certification for that qualification.

Similarly, for the affordable housing exemption, as drafted, the transferee would have 36 months from the date of recordation of the transfer to submit a refund supported by documentation of the affordable housing use.

Thank you.

So to clarify, you would submit a refund for you'd pay the RATT, and then you'd get a refund if you actually build affordable housing in three years.

Yeah, that's and that was we did that on advisement from finance.

They said that this would be most administratively simple for them to do.

So that is the reason that we've built it in in that particular structure.

Thank you.

I have reservations on this community bank.

I mean, a $10 billion company is pretty big, and even if it excludes our conventional big banks, that leaves a lot of room for predatory lenders, foreign entities, etc.

to come in and not pay the tax again.

I imagine there are quite a few subsidiaries of some of these big banks that would qualify under that as well.

So I'm deeply uncomfortable with that.

And if I were to support consider supporting this, that would definitely be something that I would need redefined in this legislation.

Sure, absolutely.

I do want to comment just not for I'm not completed with the statement through the chair.

Go ahead.

And so the next issue that I have here is the numbers.

Again, I know that 2026 saw more foreclosures, but in the city administrators' report, the estimate for the amount of money that the city would bring in is notably less.

In the on a review of 30 transactions, the annual revenue is estimated to range from 400,000 to a million, depending on the transfer type and timing.

But what you showed was a much higher numbers.

Again, obviously, I'd welcome any money coming to the city, but 400,000 to a million is very different from the multi-million dollar proposals you said.

So why why the difference?

Yeah, I'm happy to answer those questions, and they're all excellent.

So first of all, on the bank size, I know 10 billion sounds like a lot, just so uh everyone is aware in terms of how the Federal Reserve actually defines different bank sides.

There's uh 10 under 10 billion dollars is a community bank.

10 to 10 billion to 500 billion is actually regional and mid-sized banks, and above 500 billion dollars are large in global financial institutions.

So to give a sense of the total asset size of some of the largest banks, JP Morgan Chase has 3.64 trillion dollars in assets.

Okay, this is why 10 billion dollars is actually a community bank.

Bank of America has 2.6 trillion dollars, Citibank 1.7 trillion, Wells Fargo, 1.7 trillion.

So that's the scale that we're looking at when it comes to uh large banks and why um it's important, especially because community banks are actually those that are most likely to provide uh loan opportunities to those who have maybe lower credit scores, things like this.

This is why I thought it was important to have that carve out.

Um, but we're happy to, you know, we can also I'm open to removing that exemption and having a longer discussion around that if that is important.

The other thing um just to note on the the revenue side of things, and uh if anyone from finance wants to come up, but what we had discussed and what we've clarified is that those finance estimates excluded something called deed in lieu of foreclosure.

So it is the deed in lieu of foreclosure transactions that actually stand to generate the most revenue.

Um, and so we had clarified that with finance.

Uh that's why you see uh that those low projections, those are merely just the foreclosure, like pure foreclosures.

A deed in lieu of foreclosure, just to explain what that means is somebody is transferring the note sale without technically going to foreclosures.

Um that was not understood by finance at the time that they provided that 400 to $600,000 annual revenue uh estimate.

Um, and so then we provided finance those 16 examples again that we just saw through headlines.

So if anything in understates, in my opinion.

Anyways, I don't want to, again, I would prefer to have a more conservative estimate.

So what we identified is 16 different transactions that occurred over the last two and a half years, and that's where you see the the larger amounts and um yeah.

Thank you.

So it it that again I am very concerned.

I specifically in my comments through the chair mentioned that I know this ten billion dollars would exclude the big the big big big banks obviously, but that doesn't mean that those medium-sized ones aren't any less predatory.

So that would be a major issue for me, wanting that exemption.

And again, if since your legislation is proposing that council can give additional exemptions, you know, if there's situations that come up at the time, so be it.

But that is something I'm definitely concerned about.

Um I'll reserve the rest of my questions for the next council meeting.

Thank you.

All right.

If there's no other further comment, um I think at this time I would make a motion to move this to the full body so that the full body can weigh in.

Is there a second?

I guess I will second.

All right, there was a motion by council member Brown, seconded by Council Presidency.

Ask one more clarifying question.

If I knew I had one more thing, so now that this the complimentary advisory resolution isn't there anymore, the money would go to the general fund to clarify with the.

Yeah, yeah.

And I was uh I my intention with that is we could then as a body again decided through a budget resolution.

Then how the general funds would get spent.

I heard the feedback from everybody, which uh last time which there was clearly concern with adding a second advisory measure, took that into consideration.

I thought that actually made sense.

That's would be an expensive measure to put on that would be ultimately non-binding.

So um it would go into the general fund.

And uh Malie, if you want to add to that.

Uh through the chair, nothing to add on that.

Um, because the amendments were not read into the floor, I do want to make sure that um there's clarity on what's going to be amended and what um if the motion could just include direction from this body for the city attorney's office to incorporate these edits when it goes to the full council.

Um so my understanding is the amendments are to add affordable housing to subsection F1 to delete the headquartered requirement in subsection F2, to modify uh the exemption in subsection F4, such that uh that exemption is replaced by city council authority to add other exemptions and then to add catch all language that would um amend the the value of consideration for these foreclosure-related transactions to be based on the fair market value for uh administrative clarity and off of FF.

Um finally, given that the scope of this legislation has changed significantly since it was introduced, uh my recommendation is that the body allow our office to reformat and revise the legislation so that whatever goes to the full council is just clean.

Um we're gonna have one day to get a final ballot measure if this goes to the seventh.

And right now it's it has two measures on it.

We need we need to have clean legislation on the seventh.

Councilmember Ramachandra.

Thank you.

I don't feel comfortable.

I I've been trying to sift through all of the attachments and I apart from the PowerPoint, I don't see the amendments in writing.

And I would prefer to hold this in committee to next week so we can see the amendments in writing and then vote on it in the actual language.

To the maker of the motion, are you amendable to that?

Um, just a couple points of clarification.

I feel like there's a lot going on, um, and I was willing to accept with the amendments, but um I also hear what council member Ramachandran is articulating, and so I just wanna uh I guess through the chair to the city attorney, um uh, do we have enough like do we have enough time to make these needed changes and if holding in committee is what would be recommended?

So through the chair, I what I heard there was a proposal to um hold this in committee until next rules committee, which would be July 2nd.

So whether this is forwarded today or on July 2nd, it would it could go to the July 7th council meeting, either way.

There's no council meeting before July 7th, so um in either case, it could be forwarded to the July 7th council meeting.

Okay, excellent.

And so um through the chair to Councilmember Romishandrin, is that your preference?

Yes.

Okay, so so that I'll um amend my um my motion.

So in all transparency, I don't necessarily want to hear this again.

I told council member Wong that I I would support it coming out of rules, but most likely I'm not going to support it when it comes to full council.

So if we hear this in this body again and it are people going to support it coming out of rules.

If not, we should just put it on the pending list and move forward.

Well, I I supported my original motion was to move it to the full body, so I just want to that I think that's clear.

That's right.

So, but I'm also just trying to also honor what my colleague wants as well.

Thank you.

And through the just to explain, I I hear you, Council President.

Um I just I've been looking through each of the attachments and I don't see the amendments.

I know we just heard it verbally, but I'm a I'm a visual person.

So I need if we're putting this is a complicated issue, and if voters need to be clear about what's going forward, I need to be clear what we're passing.

So I cannot I don't know how I would vote next week seeing everything clearly laid out in writing rather than the verbal presentation and then the quick PowerPoint.

Um, so it's I I don't I can't say how I would vote next week, but once I see it all in writing, but I'm a visual person and I think voters are as well.

If I'm doing my due diligence to really vet proposals, I would need to see it in writing.

Um if that is an option to move it to next week, and if not, I respect that my colleagues' wishes.

That's fine.

And so uh council member Brown accepts.

Not an amendment, but you're gonna change your motion to forward this to next week's rules.

Yep, all right.

I'll second it.

So the motion as it stands is uh moved by council member brown, seconded by council member Jenkins as amended as the amendment stated on the record by the city attorney um to be forwarded to to continue to the July 2nd rules and legislation committee.

Is that the amendment?

Is that our okay with that motion on roll council member Brown?

Aye.

Councilmember five.

No.

Councilmember Ramachandran.

Aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number S 6 is approved to be continued to the July 2nd rules and legislation committee meeting with three ayes and one no.

Councilmember Fife.

That now takes us back to the original order of the agenda as the agenda was taken out of order at the beginning.

We have already dispensed with item number two.

We will now move on to the new scheduling items.

Item number 3.1 is adopt a resolution confirming the mayor's reappointment of Anne Griffith and Lynette Jungley to the Oakland Housing Authority to be scheduled on the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

Item 3.2 is a resolution confirmed.

Oh, excuse me, my apologies.

Back to item 3.1.

There is a rule 24 to be read, and that is to fill the vacancies of the OHA to ensure continuous a continuous quorum.

Item 3.2 is a resolution confirming the mayor's reappointment of Helen Umwick to the Wildfire Prevention Commission.

And this also is being requested to be scheduled for the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

And the rule 24 reasoning for this is to feel the current vacancy for the WPC to ensure continuous quorum.

Item 3.3 is receiving receive a presentation from the AC Transit on current agency um deficit projections and associated financial outlook, including potential service adjustments and workforce reduction scenarios and impacts.

And this item is being requested to be scheduledule for the July 7th, a city council agenda on consent.

Um there is a rule 24 that needs to be stated on the records.

As an update to that, uh I want this off offer consent so that we can have a presentation.

Rule 24.

Um we need to by-house committee so that this is heard by the full council so that the full impacts of uh AC transit service cuts and potential cuts is heard by the entire community.

Thank you for that.

Just confirm um this item is now going to non-consent.

Correct.

Thank you for that.

Moving on to item 3.4.

Adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to ex to accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount of $35,559.68 cents from the state of California Tech Sci Press Fund for fully full fully reimbursed the city's cost of implementing the connected scenarios seniors live stream project, which is designated to reduce barriers to uh participation in senior center programming by bringing real-time classes, wellness activities and community events directly into the homes of older adults, especially those from marginalized and historically underserved communities for the period of July 8th, 2026 to June 30th, 2027.

And this is to be heard on the July 7th, 2026 City Council agenda on consent.

Uh, there will be a rule 24 needed to be stated on record for this item to move forward.

Is staff present.

Hello, I'm Jason Wang with uh IT department.

Um the City of Oakland was notified on June 16th that the Oakland Connect Senior Live Stream Project, a program designed to break down long-standing barriers to participation in senior center programming by bringing real-time classes, wellness activities, and community events has been selected for an award.

Once grant acceptance paperwork is received from the state of California, the city will have a 14-day window to formally accept the grant.

Immediate action is required to ensure that the city is able to accept this grant and proceed to project implementation without losing the funding opportunity.

Thank you for that.

Now moving on to item 3.5, adopt a resolution one to um one commemoratively rename the telegraph avenue between 18th Street and William Street as OSA Way in honor of the Oakland School for the Arts and authorize the installation of a plaque honoring Oakland School for Arts on the 18th Street and Telegraph Avenue, 19th Street and Telegraph Avenue, and William Street and Telegraph Avenue, pursuant to the policy and criteria established by the resolution.

And this is being requested to be heard on the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

We will need a rule 24 stated on the record for this item.

Thank you.

So no, thank you so much for that.

We are now moving to item 3.6.

Adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to accept an appropriate grant funds any amount up to $750,000 from the Bay Area Host Committee Committee and to execute a grant agreement for such funds to pay for the Oakland Police Department security support operations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

And this item is being requested to be scheduled for the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

I will now read in the rule 24 for this item.

OPD receive the award letter at the end of May 2026 or at the end of May for the grant to obtain reimbursement.

The city administrator needs to sign the agreement with the Bay Area Host Community Committee.

OPD needs to submit an all necessary documents, including the signed agreement by July 17th to receive full reimbursement.

July 7th, council is the only meeting OPD could schedule this item to in order to meet the deadline.

Now reading item 3.7 is a resolution ordinance calling and giving notice to the holding of a general municipal election on November 3rd, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City of Oakland proposed ballot measure and requesting consolidation of the City of Oakland's general municipal election with the statewide election to be held in the city of Oakland on November 3rd, 2026, and authorizing the city clerk to take all actions necessary to hold the municipal election.

And this is being requested to be scheduled on the July 7th.

City Council agenda on non-consent.

And we'll read the Rule 24, which is the consolidation ordinance typically goes straight to council.

Item 3.8 is a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of Elizabeth Lake as interim city administrator and to authorizing the mayor to execute an employment agreement.

Elizabeth Lake on behalf of the city of Oakland.

And this has been requested to be scheduled for July 7th City Council agenda on non-consent.

Due to the time sensitive need to ensure continuity of administration authority before the expiration of the current city administrator administrative leave on July 15, 2026.

Confirm of the interim city administrator at the July 7th City Council agenda meeting is necessary to avoid any gaps in executive leadership and operational authority.

Councilmember Ramachandra.

Thank you.

I would like to hold this in committee for one more week for uh on the scheduling list.

Any objections be held in committee.

Councilmember Fife.

I would like to hear what the time considerations are for our bond market considerations.

That was what was presented to me as the need to expedite this item.

So if that could be articulated so I have a better understanding, that would be helpful.

Bradley.

Thank you, Council President.

The Council President and Council Member Fife.

In order to uh interact with the bond market, we are in the market for a transaction for your temporary revenue anticipation notes to prefund our CalPRS liability and provide ongoing cash flow needs with the Calpers L uh item looking for gross savings about five and a half million dollars over the course of the coming fiscal year.

We do need to have an interim or permanent city administrator appointed to sign documents, including your preliminary official statement on the 8th of July, your uh official statement documents on the 15th and 16th, and your closing documents roughly around the 28th of July.

So all those documents will require an interim or permanent uh administrator confirmed by this body in order for us to sign off on those.

Otherwise, we cannot access the market in that process.

So if we move forward with this action today for an interim, what is the proposed time?

Well, maybe through the chair.

I don't know if this is a conversation for the mayor's office.

What is the proposed timeline for the interim status?

Because it's my understanding that we're doing a nationwide search for a permanent.

I will defer to the mayor's office to answer that question.

Afternoon, good morning.

Uh council.

Uh councilmember Fife to your question.

The intent is to um appoint um Betsy Lake um to interim for a six-month um window.

Does that align with the search for permanent?

What is there?

Is that current is that happening concurrently?

Yeah, the mayor is in touch with the um with HR to um explore looking at search firms.

Um, one of the things that's in the resolution, and and I'll let City Trainer uh Richardson weigh in on this is it is a interim appointment for six months.

However, that does not preclude the mayor from appointing someone in that window, um, if someone um is uh identified.

Understood, thank you.

Thank you.

So I I just want to say publicly that these two things should have nothing to do with one another.

Uh council's ability to confirm uh city administration should have nothing to do with the bond market.

Just want to state that publicly, and I'm in agreement with Council Member Ramachandran in holding this until next week.

If Bradley's timeline is right, we have another rules before the July 7th council meeting.

What's that urgent?

So through the chair, just to note that this is being proposed for July 7th.

You could hold it in committee, but um then at that point to make it to the July 7th meeting would require um an urgency finding to place it on the supplemental agenda.

Councilmember Fife.

Any special meetings that might be necessary?

I hope not.

Because I will not be there.

Me neither.

Okay.

I I do I I do want to state that it sounded like what we heard from our finance director, is that they these two things are connected.

And so I just to get ultimate clarity from Director Johnson, we need is it is it statutorily required that we have this position in place?

Is there a legal requirement in order to address the bond needs of the city?

So my understanding and conversation with our bond council is per the charter in order to actually authorize signing these documents, which commit the city to debt arrangements, um, per our charter and how it interacts with our bond market, we need an authorized official in a permanent or interim capacity approved by this body in order to sign them.

And that my understanding is, and I have the city attorney here if he wants to weigh in further, is that um there aren't there's no other official aside from a confirmed city administrator who would have the authority to sign those documents uh inclusive of myself and the mayor, that neither of us could uh substitute in that space.

I would like to hear from the city attorney, Ryan Richardson, city attorney.

So yes, what uh administr what Director Johnson just said is correct.

The the closing for these bonds is currently scheduled for the week of the for of July 14th uh or 13th.

Um during that week is when administrator Johnson's resignation would become effective, and we would not have a city administrator that was can had been confirmed by the council.

Um and in consultation with bond council under our charter, there would be a lack of clarity that we had somebody who is duly authorized to sign these documents.

We've looked at whether other city officials could sign, but in the charter, the person that's designated as the chief financial officer with with explicit authority to manage the city's financial affairs and with explicit authority to bind the city by contract is the city administrator.

That is the person that is always signed the bond documents that will need to be signed on the 16th and on the 15th and 16th.

So I need to understand from the rules committee what is the problem, because this sounds this uh it sounds very straightforward from from what I'm understanding from our city attorney and our finance director that this is absolutely critical.

So according to the constitution of the city of Oakland, what I'm hearing, the council that that I'm understanding is that we're in a situation that we need to move this item forward.

So to council member five, I still say these two things have nothing to do with one another.

By charter, we have the ability to confirm a city administrator.

That's by charter, right?

We do not have to confirm the individual that is presented to us.

So we're talking about bonds.

You could put another name on there.

You could put another name for a city administrator on there, right?

So you don't have to say yes because we are going to the bond market.

There are other options.

Councilmember.

What are the other options?

Councilmember Brown.

Oh, other options?

Yeah.

There's other people.

Okay.

Um, okay.

Thank you so much for the dialogue.

Um, I kind of had the same question of like what is the purpose of holding it in committee for one week um versus it versus presenting it in to the entire body.

Because this is a scheduling item.

More time to do research to see what other options are available.

Yeah.

I'll say I I think this needs to move forward.

I don't I don't understand who we could put in place in a week that would um satisfy the requirements that are needed.

I understand there may be concerns with the individual, but that is the individual in position at this particular time.

And from what I'm understanding from the mayor's office, that there will be a process to go through to confirm a permanent individual, but at this time be and I swear in Oakland there's no sh no short of crises or emergencies that push us up against deadlines.

This feels like one of those times, and so I do not want to play with the bond market.

It should not have to uh be related, but in this particular moment, what I'm hearing from the people who do this work every single day that it is so in the best interest of the city in this time sensitive moment, I want to move this forward to the full city council.

I have a lot of personal opinions, lots of them.

But in what's in the best interest of the city of Oakland, in order to sign these documents that I'm hearing from our finance director need to be signed, I would like to move this forward.

Councilmember Brown.

Awesome.

Likewise, I would like to move the item forward.

And I um remain I'm gonna I will restate my preference for this item staying in committee.

So it just seems we're deadlocked.

Can the mayor break a tie?

No.

I'm kidding.

So this item will stay in committee.

So uh to to clarify item 3.8, will we need a motion to move this item um keep this item committee or do we need to move forward with not scheduling that need clarity on what we are?

If there isn't a a m a vote by a majority of uh the committee members present to do anything, then it will then nothing will happen.

So it won't be automatically scheduled to the next rules committee and it won't be forwarded just for clarity.

I would have to bring it back for another for scheduling.

Let me share this to excuse me, thank you through the chair.

This is what happens when you rush to judgment on Justin.

This this we wouldn't even be here.

Council wouldn't even yes, sir.

Is this related to scheduling?

I had to say what I had to say.

Thank you.

And so for clarity with their um being a tie this item uh there would be no action taken on item 3.8.

I I I would like to request through the chair for the director of finance to answer what happens if we don't sign these documents, and then I would also like to understand from this body what we are looking forward to getting a week from now that would satisfy the concerns that are being listed today.

Through the council president to council member five, if we do not have a interim or a permanent city administrator in position to sign documents on the three dates I'm mentioned related to the POS, the OS, and the closing documents for the for this transaction, we have to terminate the transaction.

The estimated growth savings from the transaction is about five and a half million dollars in terms of our PERS costs, which we would not be able to prefund and might have other impacts in terms of our cla cash flow management.

So this is something that we've been counting on in order to r uh realize some savings and address an ongoing budgetary issue.

That's been that's sort of the rationale for the transaction, which you guys have approved and there's a final uh approval of a document coming to you uh also scheduled separately on the seventh related to your official statement release.

But if you do not have a person sitting as interim or permanent at the times of the signature, we can't move forward with the transaction.

So what does this communicate to our bond committee?

So to be to be, and I'm uh because they're I'm sure they're watching.

Yeah, so I'll and I'll be clear about I'm I've I've heard the council president about separating what the item is.

Financial concern is not about the person, but it is about having a person in the interim or permanent space that is confirmed by this body and therefore authorized under the charter to sign the documents.

It is a legal matter that on those dates we need to have a signature, a signatory that's authorized to sign.

That is the context as our city attorney has mentioned as well.

Okay.

That is our concern.

Your process, the fact that we're having conversation, I don't see as particular thing.

This would be a normal legislative process that you might go through.

I don't think it's problem we're talking that we're talking about this this way or having a spirited discussion, and you guys are doing your due diligence in that space.

Well, let's just get spirited away.

Um through the chair to our city attorney, what is the what are the options that we have within the next seven days to have an alternative individual in this space?

What can we do if our charter already outlies what the process is?

What are our options?

So through the chair, it the appointment process for a c any city administrator, including an interim one, is that the mayor puts forward their appointment and the council has to confirm it.

So in order to, as um Director Johnson said, in order to close these bond documents and have a city administrator who is duly appointed, where we've dotted all our I's and crossed all our T's under the charter, and to do that on the 15th and 16th of July, that the process that I just described would have had to have taken place.

Somebody would have been had to have been put forward to the council by the mayor for appointment and confirmed by the council for an interim appointment with a start date of July 15th, so that that person would be available to sign the bond documents.

So what I'm hearing is that the mayor would have to put forward and for this body to move forward.

So council president, I'm asking, is your request that the mayor put forward an alternative proposal for an interim within the next seven days to bring forward to or potentially schedule uh to the full city council in order to move this forward, or that we don't have anyone in place.

I'm I want to understand what the path forward is.

Yeah, I I don't think that's the actual choice, right?

And so I just want another week to do due diligence, right?

So the mayor doesn't explain to me what due diligence is.

Diligence, maybe talk with the mayor, talk with the city administrator, talk with city attorney.

I would like to see do my due diligence and see what other options or are available.

And so to I I want to wrap this up.

So through the chair to the city attorney.

To fit inside of this timeline, through the chair, uh as um assistant city attorney McCauley explained if this could be a new item could be scheduled.

Um in theory, the mayor's office could put forward a different item um for an appointment next Wednesday to schedule it and then have that appear at rules on Thursday.

If for if the council does, if this rules committee does want to make a decision next week to forward something to the July 7th council meeting, it would need to be there would need to be an urgency finding because it would be going on the supplemental agenda for that meeting.

So technically those things could all happen.

Okay, I just don't think that's good, but if that is the will of the body.

Let's say every every week we come to rules, and there's some type of rush on why we have to make a decision, right?

So this is a power that's vested in us by the charter, right?

And it's something that we have to take seriously.

This person is going to be running the city for um maybe the next six months, right?

So I'm just asking for another week and we will move forward, but I just want to do my due diligence on behalf of my constituents.

City attorney, city administrator.

I want to talk.

Thank you for the discussion.

So item 3.8 will have no action taken at this time.

That now takes us to item 3.9.

Receive an informational report from the city attorney's office regarding the cases the city attorney's office has brought pursuant to the Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 1.010.

And this item is being requested to be scheduled for the July 9th rules and legislation committee agenda.

Item 3.10 is a resolution to accept an appropriate grant funds from the Oakland Fund in amount not to exceed $200,500 for a comprehensive independent audit of the City of Oakland's technology systems.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Finance and Management Committee Agenda.

Item 311 is receiving information report on the one-year update to the fiscal year 26 through 30 Oakland roadmap to fiscal health, a plan to address mid and long-term city financial challenges.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Finance and Management Committee Agenda.

Item 313 is a resolution authorizing this council president to submit a response on behalf of the city council to the 2025-2026 Alameda County civil grand jury report.

And this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th public works and transportation committee agenda.

Item 314 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to finalize and execute a contract purchasing agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission clipper in support of the West Oakland Universal Basic Mobility Pilot Project Financial Incentives in the form of 1,000 prepaid clipper cards at a total cost of 400,000, providing the necessary spending authority for the agreement, waiving small small local business participation requirements and waiving advertising, bidding, and request for qualification proposal competitive selection requirements.

This item is being requested to be scheduled on the July 14th, 2026 Public Works and Transportation Committee Agenda.

Item 315 is receive the 2025 Safe Oakland Streets Annual Information Report from the Department of Transportation in coordination with the Oakland Police Department, the Department of Race and Equity, and the City Administrator's Office to be heard on the July 14th, 2026 Public Works and Transportation Committee Agenda.

Item 316 is adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to accept an appropriate grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the amount of $750,000 to use grant funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the installation of 15 two-port electric vehicle charging stations to be located at the city maintenance service center, 7101 Edgewater Drive, Oakland, and to adopt appropriate SEQA findings.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th.

One, a resolution authorizing the forgiveness of a city loan to Athena MTLLC of the of up to $2 million in outstanding principal plus all accrued and unpaid interest and fees, and a city revolving line of credit to Savash Offshore and with a final outstanding balance of $1,500,500,000 plus accrued and unpaid interest and fees for the Foothill Seminary Point Retail Project.

Each contingent upon the sale of the transfer of the project to a qualified purchaser and making appropriate CEQA findings, and two an ordinance authorizing the forgiveness of outstanding and future rent balances in the amount of up to $40,000 for Seminary Point LLC pursuant to a ground lease with the city contingent on the sale or transfer of the property to a qualified purchaser and making CEQA findings.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Community and Economic Development Committee agenda.

Item 318 is receiving information report on the inventory of the city-owned properties and analyzed for the use as interim shelter, safe parking and vehicle storage pursuant to the encampment embatement policy.

This is being requested to be scheduled for the July 14th life enrichment committee agenda.

Item 319, the HUD continuum of care programs.

I believe staff is here to read a title change.

Thank you, Chrissy Love Human Services Department.

Resolution one, accepting appropriating and authorizing agreements for the receipt of continuum of care, COC, supportive housing program renewal funds from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD in an amount not to exceed 5,650,302.

And two, awarding and or amending the grant agreements to the nonprofit agencies for the terms and in the amounts identified in table one using COC funds and other state and local funds.

Three, authorizing the city administrator to identify backup funding from state and local sources that have been appropriated for homelessness programs and to re allocate or reallocate such funds to the programs identified in Table One to continue operation through the grant terms in the event COC funding is delayed and four accepting and appropriating additional COC funds that become available for the same purposes within both FY2627 and FY2728 and authorizing the city administrator to amend the agreements to adjust the grant terms and amounts within the limits of the awards.

Thank you so much.

And this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th life enrichment committee agenda.

Thank you so much.

And moving to item 320, adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to enter into a professional services agreement with Bright Research Group.

Inc.

for training and capacity building services for the Department of Violence Prevention from September 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2028, for a total contract amount not to exceed $513,000 to be scheduled for July 14th public safety committee agenda.

Item 3.21 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to apply for accept and appropriate Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds up to $324,324 for the fiscal year 25 2025 grant award period of October 1st, 2025 through September 30, 2028, to support department-wide training, equipment and technology and operational enhancements to be scheduled for the July 14th public safety committee agenda.

Item 3.22 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to enter into a professional services agreement with Rotocraft Support Inc.

to provide helicopter maintenance services to the Oakland Police Department for a period of July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2028, for a contract total of $1,700,000 with an option to extend the contract for two additional years to June 30th, 2030 for a total contract not to exceed $3,400,000 and waiving the local small business enterprise program requirements and being this is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th public safety committee agenda.

Council member.

Yes, I have a through the chair.

I have a comment about 318.

Why are we bringing it July the 14th talking about properties that's owned by the city when that's the date that the EAP is going to start being implemented?

Because Councilmember Fife, her recommendation was to hold it back for three months, when it was implemented or when it was approved on 414, which gave us enough time to look at things, right?

And I was uh blessed yesterday to go to or um to attend the commission of homelessness with umari and mr.

Cupid on the 24th, which was yesterday.

Um, and I think this should go on the same day.

I think that 318 should go to full council to let them know what's going on on 7, 726, along with bringing this um this PowerPoint, this powerful PowerPoint that Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Fife, Council Member Gennani, you guys need to see this PowerPoint.

What was done before is implemented because it's gonna be implemented on the 14th, and now we're talking about properties, we're talking about properties that needed to be brought up prior within those three months so we can address these RVs.

It's gonna be removed.

Councilmember Gennati, President Jenkins, Councilmember Brown.

We're talking about this bringing this on the 14th, the day that the EAP I was the author of the EAP, that it's gonna be brought on the four on the 14th.

Let's bring it to full council so council knows what they can do and we can move this and find out these properties that need to be addressed when these RVs is being removed.

Because if you look at this, 23 um encampments was closed in council member five's district.

You need to see this stuff, Councilmember Fife.

You need to see this needs to come to full council on as an emergency before, because let me share this with you, President.

If we bring this to the 21st, that'll be seven days after the encampment abatement policy is passed.

It's being implemented, right?

And then if we wait from the 14th when it's being implemented to the next council meeting, which is on 9-15, that's 63 days before the while it's being implemented.

This needs to be addressed, and that need to be put on the seventh count, president.

We gotta look at this.

We're about to start closing down encampments.

People are gonna be unhoused, we ain't gonna have no place to put them, and we're talking about it on the 14th, the day that it's gonna be done.

Okay.

How's the city run?

So, Councilmember Houston.

Yes, I think you are saying two things.

There's a presentation that you want to go to the next council meeting, is that correct?

7726, President, yes.

And then what you're also are advocating for is the city-owned properties.

You're advocating for it to bypass committee and go straight to council.

On 7-7, so we understand what's happening because if you look here on 318, it says that on July 14th, life enrichment.

That's the data they're gonna start implementing it.

Councilmember Fife.

Okay, okay.

So I'm gonna go to Councilmember Brown, but Councilmember Fife, you're gonna have to weigh in as the chair of LEC.

Are you okay with 318 going straight to full council as opposed to going to committee?

So, Councilmember Brown, then five.

Excellent.

Um, all I was gonna say is that um in alignment with the policy in the 90 days, I think the department was just um kind of following what the policy outlined because we gave that timeline.

But I'm if the chair of LEC is um amenable, I'm I'm okay with it going to full council.

Councilmember Fife.

This is not my item.

I did not schedule this.

This is a city administrator's item to identify what the uh inventory is of uh vacant parcels.

It will have absolutely no bearing on what we do in terms of housing people, moving RVs whatsoever.

We've done this inventory in the past.

I have two city-owned parcels in district three, neither of which are large enough to do anything around homelessness.

So I don't see this item as being impactful at all.

And I've seen the PowerPoint presentation that you're talking about.

This will offer, as most of what we do here, no real solutions to the crisis that my district is being impacted by.

So if we're talking about moving things off my agenda for a day that's already impacted, I have no problem with that.

And at the same time, I do want to follow the protocols of going through committee um before items are heard.

But this is an informational report, they're gonna just tell us what the vacant parcels are, which can be read in an info packet again.

I don't see how this presentation is going to do anything substantial to move the needle on homelessness.

But that is my perspective through the chair.

Yeah, begg to differ, Councilmember Fife.

And let me share with you why in district seven one one seventy third Avenue was a sh a site that was shut down by the city because they ran out of funds.

I have a relationship from the state, county to the city.

It's already been put in place that if that city property was up and ready to be taken in individuals from their RVs, the county, the county would fund the person, the provider.

So this could have been done, but then Justin left and then it fell all apart, right?

But let me share what happened with that council member Fife, that same lot, seven one one.

It's not in my district, it's in the president's district.

We work together like two Ps in a pod.

So let me share this with you.

The city put five hundred thousand dollars into that property.

When it was closed down, Councilmember Gennani, guess what happened?

No security, no nothing, right?

It was damaged, it was vandalized, telephone poles were cut down, all the wires was pulled out so that $500, $500,000 council president is gone and wasted.

And after we took that walk and I was with Cubic Justin, I'm not sure if you came, Council President, but it's more damage now.

So the city already spent $500,000, now they gotta spend another $300,000.

So what I'm speaking is I beg to differ because let me tell you why.

If it would have been adjusted and and brought together, monitoring the lot that the city owns in that three months, we would have had individuals on that property, Councilmember Fife.

So what I'm saying is is that somehow we gotta come together and be organized because I didn't agree with what you did, Councilmember Fife, with the three months, but after I looked at it and I analyzed it, I appreciate that because it gave the city enough time to be able to make things happen, which it didn't.

And your pro the property in your district right there, Council President, is a is a is a prime example why it didn't happen, right?

And it's not your fault, it's not you.

I'm not saying you.

I'm saying that this county right now said that they would provide the provider if it was up and running.

If we would have had it monitored, we would have people from your district council member Fife from all across your district on that.

It's forty-seven location so 47 spaces in there that could be utilized.

So what I'm saying is this, let me tell you this to you.

I got it now, President.

Okay, okay.

Can we just move on?

Again, I said my schedule for life enrichment is impacted.

I'm not uh uh I'm not necessarily um concerned with an item being moved off my agenda.

In fact, it frees up more time and space for me to manage my agenda, but I I have to ask if the materials are available, um, and because I I assume that whatever would be presented for an info report would need to be um ready for the seventh.

So that is a question because we can't just say move something and make it happen, the city moves slowly.

And I want to say that the city staff who do the cleanings and closures asked for a hundred and twenty days, not 90 days.

This was not something that I just came up with.

I was asked by our homelessness team to extend the time so they could put in um standard operating procedures.

This was not my SOPs so that the fire department, the police department, the homelessness team would all be on the same page about how to operationalize the EAP.

So I want to be absolutely clear.

This came from staff as a request.

Not sure why they didn't say that to you, but that's what they asked me for because my district is the most impacted, and this is an info report where the information on the vacant properties are available and have been available for years.

If y'all want me to move uh homeless interventions to other parts of the city outside of district three, happy to do that.

But right now in my district, we don't have space that is city owned, and I want to make that absolutely clear.

Anything that we're doing for real solutions, I want to move that forward, and that's not what this is.

Okay, so council member, we gotta move forward.

So 318, we'll do a rule 24.

As uh we're gonna move this to full council uh with the EAP set to take place.

Um it's important that we hear this report in here where there are um spaces to put people that might be displaced.

Thank you, Councilmember Houston.

For the other item that you're requesting, you need to come back to for item four and request that it come back.

Item four item four.

Trinity will be here.

Okay, okay.

Right.

Oh, through the chair, um, we need from the city administrator's office.

Um, I'm not sure if staff is gonna be prepared to finalize that report for tonight's print.

Okay.

So I needed I'm waiting to hear back from staff if they can present and also have the report ready, unless you want this to be let's leave it as is if they are ready to present or rule 28 it.

To Councilmember Houston?

So we're going to leave it as is until we find out if the department is ready to present.

Thank you.

We're gonna move.

So noted item 318 will be as is.

We're going back to item the um 3.23 with the next item in order, and that is a resolution accepting the Department of Violence Prevention 2026 APROCOD annual report and approving the amended APRCOT use policy as approved by the privacy advisory commission on the um June 4th, 2026.

And this is requesting to be scheduled for July 14th Public Safety Committee agenda.

Item 3.24 is a resolution accepting the 2025 annual reports for the following City of Oakland police department surveillance technology, automated license plate readers, crime lab biometrics DNA analysis technology for looking infrared, live streaming um transmitter unmanned aerial systems, forensic logic, cop like crime tracer, cop link, excuse me, trime tracer, pin register, sell you bright and making department regarding whether the city should continue to use each of these technologies, and this is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th public safety committee agenda.

Item 3.25 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator or designee to enter into an operational area agreement with Alameda County to participate in an um intermediate level of the state emergency services organization that will comply with the state of California standardized emergency management systems for the period from um ratification through December 31st, 2035.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th Public Safety committee agenda.

Um item 3.26 is a resolution authorizing reimbursement from the city uh from the council contingency fund for the council member Rowena Brown and Council Member Janani Ramachandran's travel costs to Anaheim, California for attendance of the 2026 California League of Cities Annual Conference and Expo from September 23rd through the 25th, 2026, to be heard on the July 21st, 2026 City Council agenda.

And the Rule 24 is that the reimbursement items traditionally go directly to the full council.

Item 3.27 is a resolution in support of assembly bill 1588 vehicles.

Side show enhancement.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 21st City Council Agenda on Consent.

And we will need a Rule 24 from staff on this item.

It's Councilmember Wongstaff here.

That'll go to next week's rules 318.

The report is pretty much done and it can go straight to full council on the 7th.

So noted item 318, the report on inventory of citywide properties will be scheduled to the July 7th City Council on consent or nonconsent.

Non-consent.

So noted going back to for clarity, item 3.27.

We will continue this to next rules or we, yes.

Item 3.28, receive an information report on the Oakland storm drainage master plan finding and the assuring opportunity to explore storm drain fee vowing to help build a resilient storm drainage system drainage to reduce flooding, reverse impacts of deferred storm drainage maintenance and achieve clean waterways.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for the September 22nd public works and transportation committee agendas.

This now takes us to the recommendations from the committees June 23rd finance and management committee agenda.

The first item 3.29, um I will read in the short titles only, and this is um N FIN solutions LLC professional services contract.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to forward this item to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

Item 3.30 from finance on June 23rd, the Oakland PEFERS investment portfolio as of March 31st, 2026.

The committee received and filed this item in committee.

Item 3.31, amendments to the ordinance number 12187 CMS, the salary ordinance for various classification and exemptions.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to forward this item to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

And that consists of both pieces of legislation of item 3.31, July 7th on consent.

Excuse me, all three pieces of legislation.

Wait, five pieces of legislation for that item.

Item 3.32, also from the finance and management committee amendment to the ordinance number 12187, salary ordinance for council member city attorney and city auditor.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff and for the item to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

This now takes us to recommendations from the June 23rd Public Works and Transportation Committee, starting with item 3.33, which consists of two pieces of legislation.

It's contracts with the United Rotary Brush Corp and Owens equipment sales.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff and to forward both items to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

Item 3.34, the contract asphalt and concrete disposal service for in-house paving operations.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council Agenda on Consent.

Item 3.35 is a construction contract award for highway safety improvement program cycle 10, 14th Street Safety Project Project between Mandela Parkway and Brush Street.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to July 7th City Council on consent.

Item 3.36, the Broadway Street Scrape Streetscape Improvement Construction Contract Award.

The committee approved to withdraw and reschedule this item to the July 14th Public Works and Transportation Committee Agenda.

That now takes you to the recommendation from the July 23rd Community and Economic Development Committee Agenda.

The item 3.37 is the Costco exclusive negotiating agreement.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council Agenda on Consent.

Item 3.38.

The bid annual reports and approval of assessments payment.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to July 7th on consent, and that consists of both pieces of legislation.

Item 3.39 is the 2026-2027 annual action plan to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council Agenda as a public hearing.

Item 3.40 is sale of the 319 Chester Street.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council Agenda on Consent.

We now move to the recommendations from the June 23rd Life Enrichment Committee.

Item 3.41 is the OFCY year-round program service term or 2026 through 2028.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council Agenda on Consent.

This now takes us to the recommendations from June 23rd Public Safety Committee.

Starting with item 3.42 is a temporarily restricted street closure from International Boulevard.

The committee approved the recommendations of staff and forwarded the item to the July 7th City Council agenda as a public hearing.

Item 3.43, the side show penalty ordinance.

The committee approved to withdraw and reschedule this item to the public safety committee agenda pending list under no date specific.44, ratifying the city of Oakland's Sanctuary City Policy.

The committee approved as amended the recommendations of staff and to forward this items to July 7th City Council agenda on consent with the following amendments on pages six and seven of the legislation under civilian immigrant detainers and notification requests striking a sec from section one exempt as provided in subsection two, striking all of section two, and opd employee may continue to determine an individual in response to a civil immigration detainer for up to 48 hours after the individual becomes eligible for release.

If the continued detention is consistent with the state and federal law, and the individual meets both of the following criteria, striking from section three, exempt as provided in subsection four, striking all of section four, and OPD employee may respond to the federal immigration officer's notification request if such response is consistent with the state and federal law.

And if the individual meets both of the following criteria, the individual either has been convicted of a violent felony in seven years immediately prior to the date of the notification request, or two has been convicted of a serious felony in the five years immediately prior to the date of the notification request, or three has been convicted of three felonies identified in the penal code sections, or government code sections, or the other than domestic violence arising out of three separate incidents in the five years immediate prior to the date of the notification request.

And a magistrate has determined that there is a probable cause to believe that the individual is guilty of the felony identified in the penal code section or government code sections or other than domestic violence, and has ordered the individual to answer the same pursuant to the penal code sections in determining whether the response to the notification request has permitted by this subsection D, and OPD employee shall consider indiv um evidence of the individual's rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses a public safety risk, evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigation factors to consider, include but is not limited to the individual's ties to the community, whether the individual has been a victim of any crime, the individual contribution to the community and the individual's participation in social services or rehabilitation program.

And again, this item was requested to go to July 7th City Council agenda on consent with the amendments.

And the last item from public safety on June 23rd is item 3.44.

Thank you for all that reading.

That was a lot.

That was a let's go to public commenters.

Thank you.

And we will now call it folks.

We have two people who signed up for item three at this time.

I have Blair Beekman and Rajni Mondal.

Um I will take those who are here in person first.

Good morning, Rajni or afternoon.

Good afternoon, Rajni Mandel District 4.

I have a few comments and upcoming agenda items that share a common theme: implementation and long-term investment.

First said appreciate a status update on the flock community camera program.

Last December, council approved continuing the flock contract and expanding it to support the community camera program.

Yet six months later appears the new contract still has not been executed.

In the meantime, PAC recently completed its review of the existing flock program, and the annual report showed the technology is being used responsibly with documented audits, mandatory training, strengthened data restraint sharing restrictions, and no reported policy violations.

The updated policy also expands authorized investigations to include illegal dumping.

So my question is simple: where does the community camera program stand today?

And if council approved this expansion six months ago, what is the implementation timeline and where is the bottleneck?

Public safety technology is only effective if projects move from approval to execution in a timely manner.

Second, I support bringing forward the helicopter maintenance contract because OPD has to maintain the con the aircraft it has today.

But that helicopter I think is more than 20 years old, and we should be asking what comes next.

Is there a long-term replacement strategy?

Are there newer or more cost-effective options such as fixed wing aircraft that could provide similar capabilities at a lower life cycle cost?

More broadly, this isn't just about the helicopter.

Oakland has aging police vehicles, fire apparatus, public works equipment, and technology systems across city government.

I also support the mayor's proposal for an independent technology audit, but I hope it leads to a citywide technology modernization plan and not just simply another report.

Although Measure E did not pass, the these infrastructure needs haven't disappeared, and I hope the city begins discussing a comprehensive capital replacement strategy and explose explores whether existing capital funding sources, including unused bond proceeds were legally permissible, can be used to modernize fleet and technology across city departments.

These aren't glamorous investments, but they are essential to delivering reliable public services.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

We'll now take the next speaker, our Zoom speaker.

I have Blair Beekman.

You may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Uh good afternoon.

Um I wanted to speak on uh three quest items, uh, 341, 3.41 to 3.45, 3.24, and 3.37.

Yeah, okay.

So uh with 246, uh, yeah, uh, thank you.

Uh uh about uh to begin with item three point four four this Oakland City Sanctuary plan.

Um thank you that you approved it a couple days ago.

Uh thank you to council person Houston who um he's got a lot to weigh and decided to go for our uh ideals and work out practicality from our ideals.

Good luck in that in that effort.

It's from the sanctuary city policies.

There's a lot of comment.

What are we gonna do about the future of Flock?

Thank you a lot for the previous public comment, who I think really spoke uh nicely.

Where is the program at at this time?

Um has the ability to to add a whole bunch of new technology without oversight, without council or PA oversight, I think.

That's a question.

Can we work on that?

And uh can we really start working on, you know, we're supposed to be working for the future of uh a new AOPR vendor besides Flock in the next 18 months to start having those conversations now in public.

I think would help with morale.

I think it would it would be positive and not fear, and and I think we should start doing that stuff now to get a community involvement.

And what is the future we're building?

We're building a future without war, basically.

I think we should start doing those things now.

So good luck in those efforts.

Um I also wanted to address um Costco issue.

Um I you know, as much as uh we can't live there.

Uh it's been deemed uh way but we can place food and and product there, and that's safe.

I think that needs to be questioned.

Good luck in having the conversation about it.

Thank you that council person said.

Just as long as we can have a community conversation, that's what's key, and thank you for her words on that.

Uh, so important.

Item three point five, um, three point four five is uh the recruitment process for a chief of police.

You guys keep complaining that uh we get we keep uh going through police chiefs.

It's because our public is has a deep concern and our public has a great review system to make sure processes in place that we have best practices going on.

And administration's angry about that, and you guys are creating new legal systems to take that away from the public.

When we have a very we have a very good system of checks and balances in place that administration needs to respect more and understand that dynamic and relationship and learn how to work with that better.

Um, we go back and forth.

I hope we come to a conclusion on the importance of public participation, and that's how we hire a new police chief who will stay by believing in the public.

A certain uh important part of the public.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments that concludes our speakers for item three.

Thank you, Councilmember Five.

I'm only speaking to this because I heard a woo-hoo from the gallery over there about fixed wing aircraft in 2023.

Councilmember Kaplan at the time and I brought forward an info report requesting information on the costing for that item.

It is something I plan on bringing back to the public safety committee.

So I just wanted to state that for the record.

Thank you, Councilmember Five.

All right.

3.2, there's a rule twenty-four read in, three point three.

There was world twenty-four read in three point four, those rule twenty-four, read in, three point five, there's world twenty-four there.

Three point eight.

We'll go to next week's rules.

Um, no action.

3.8, no action.

Uh 3.27.

We'll go to next week's rules.

3.18.

We'll go to July 7th non-consent council meeting with the rule twenty-four and three point nineteen title change.

Oh, I take a motion.

So moved, second.

And that was a motion by council member Ramachandra and seconded by Councilmember Brown.

Um to approve item three as amended on roll, Councilmember Brown.

Aye.

Council Member Five.

Aye.

Councilmember Ramachandran.

Aye.

Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number three is approved as amended with four eyes.

That now takes us to item four, which is our last item since we did take this agenda out of order.

Item number four is review of the draft minutes, excuse me, of the draft agendas pending list in the city council committee meetings.

And this in your package, you have your committee uh July 2nd rules committee, your pending list, and July draft July 7th council and rules committee.

Anything from the administration.

No changes from the administration.

Sweet.

Through the chair to the body.

Just uh regarding the July 2nd rules and legislation committee.

Just wanted to note because this body earlier in this meeting continued item S6 to that agenda.

That's technically going to appear on the what's the supplemental agenda for rules committee.

So when you hear the item at rules, it will require an urgency finding just stating that on the record so the clerk can make that notation on the agenda.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Dr.

Chair Trinity Hall from the Office of Councilmember Ken Houston.

We are requesting to place the EMAP presentation that was presented during the Commission on Homelessness on 6 24 2026 on the City Council meeting on 7-7 2026.

We're going to use a rule 24.

And if this presentation is heard any time after, um it will be seven days after the EAP implementation.

And then we also run the risk of running into council recess and run the risk of not having a council meeting until 9 15 2026.

Thank you.

I'll rule 28.

Okay, thank you.

Let's go to the public speakers.

Sorry, apologies.

We don't have any public speakers for this item.

We just have one for open forum, which is next.

Yeah.

So we need a motion.

Second.

That was a motion by Councilmember Ramachandran.

Apologies, second by councilmember Brown to approve item four as is on roll.

Councilmember Brown.

Aye.

Councilmember Fife.

Aye.

Councilmember Ramachandran.

Aye.

Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number four is approved as is with four eyes.

That now takes us to open forum.

I have one speaker on this, which is Ms.

Rajni Mandal.

Good afternoon.

Rajni Mandal District 4.

I just like to make a brief comment about public participation.

At the last public safety committee meeting, several speakers were heckled and intimidated while giving public comment.

And yesterday there's also shooting just a couple blocks from City Hall in broad daylight.

Many Oakland residents are not activists or members of organized groups.

They have jobs, families, other responsibilities, and they're less likely to come to City Hall if they don't feel welcome or don't feel safe.

And that's why I hope council continues to place real value on emails and e-comments.

The recent elections show that Oakland has an engaged electorate, but not everyone can attend meetings in person.

But their voices are just as important and deserve to be heard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes our open form speaker.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.