[00:00:04] T HE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE [Roll Call] WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5TH. WE'RE BEGINNING TODAY AT 1:31 P.M. DIRECTOR COFFEY. HERE. DIRECTOR ESPAÑA. HERE. CHAIR WAESPI. HERE. ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL ROSENBERG. HERE. TODAY'S MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT. STAFF IS PROVIDING LIVE AUDIO AND VIDEO STREAMING. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT MAY DO SO BY SUBMITTING AN EMAIL, LEAVING A VOICEMAIL, OR JOINING LIVE VIA ZOOM WITH THE LINK PROVIDED ON THE AGENDA LOCATED ON THE DISTRICT WEBSITE. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEETING PROCEDURES, WE WILL BEGIN. ALL RIGHT. OUR FIRST ITEM WILL BE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS, NOT ON THE AGENDA. CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. HEARING NONE. WE'LL MOVE STRAIGHT TO THE ACTION ITEMS, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION TO SPONSOR PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ARTICLE THREE LEGISLATION. [Action Items] GOOD AFTERNOON. DIVISION LEAD FOR GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, ERICH PFUEHLER. JUST GOING TO MAKE A QUICK INTRODUCTION AND THANK THE BOARD FOR THEIR HANGING AROUND TO CONSIDER THIS ITEM. AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR AN ACTION ITEM AND A RECOMMENDATION. JUST A REMINDER THAT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD BE ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS FOR WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE AND KEEP OPTIONS OPEN FOR THIS BOARD AND FUTURE BOARDS. EACH BOARD WOULD SET ITS OWN POLICY. SO WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT THE LEGISLATION ESTABLISHES, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SET THE POLICY FOR THE AGENCY. SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION TODAY. AND JUST A REMINDER THAT FEBRUARY 21ST IS THE BILL INTRODUCTION DEADLINE. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS SPECIAL MEETING. THANK YOU. AND INTRODUCING LISA. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. LISA BALDINGER, LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY MANAGEMENT ANALYST. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. ALL RIGHT. SO AS ERICH NOTED, THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION IS THE GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPONSOR LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ARTICLE THREE. AND TODAY'S PRESENTATION AIMS TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ON THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION IS IN RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK GOVERNING REGIONAL PARK DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS FRAMEWORK HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN ON COMPREHENSIVELY SINCE IT WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED IN THE 1930S, WHEN OUR AGENCY WAS CREATED. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NUMBER OF ONE OFF AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED, BUT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW HAS NOT BEEN DONE. IN RESPONSE AND AT DIRECTION OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, STAFF MOVED FORWARD A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS TODAY, WHICH INCLUDES 13 SECTION AMENDMENTS FOCUSING ON VARIOUS AREAS WITHIN THE CODE. AT A HIGH LEVEL, WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS ARE SEEKING TO DO INCLUDE MODERNIZING GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES, SUCH AS CREATING AN OPTION TO RAISE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT. SUPPORT INCLUSIVITY THROUGH REVISED PRONOUNS WITHIN THE LEGISLATION. THERE IS ALSO AN OPTION THAT WE'LL DISCUSS TODAY TO MAINTAIN BOARD MEMBER COMPENSATION, BUT ALLOW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ALSO SEEK TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CHALLENGES, SUPPORTING LAND CONSERVATION AND CLIMATE MITIGATION WITHIN THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, AND IMPROVE LAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES. SO IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY, AND IN RESPONSE TO THIS COMMITTEE'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED A POLICY REPORT WHICH PROVIDES THE WHAT AND THE WHY FOR EACH PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THE WHAT THE LANGUAGE DOES AND THE PURPOSE FOR THAT CHANGE. YOU'VE ALSO RECEIVED THE ENTIRE DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL. SO THE REDLINED VERSION THAT WAS SHARED WITH LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE FEEDBACK FROM LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL. SO THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS LIKELY TO UNDERGO SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES. AND ALL LEGISLATION THAT GETS INTRODUCED IS LIKELY TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS IT GOES THROUGH COMMITTEE. SO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY ARE THE CONCEPTS AND THE PRIORITIES WITHIN THE SPONSORED LEGISLATION AND THE CONTEXT OF IT. BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE WE'RE LIKELY TO HAVE EVEN MORE EDITS IN TIME. AND THEN, AS ERICH SHARED, THE CONTEXT OF THE TIMELINESS. AND THE REASON FOR TODAY'S SPECIAL MEETING IS THAT FEBRUARY 21, 2025 IS THE BILL DEADLINE. AND SO, BY WAY OF PROCESS OVERVIEW, WE'RE HOPING TODAY THIS COMMITTEE WILL CREATE OR WILL PUT FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL BOARD. WE HAVE IT ON THE FEBRUARY 18TH FULL BOARD AGENDA FOR A DISCUSSION ITEM. [00:05:02] WE WOULD BRING YOUR RECOMMENDATION FORWARD BEFORE THE FULL BOARD WITH CONTEXT OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION. AND THEN WE'RE HOPING THE FULL BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON FEBRUARY 18TH CAN MOVE FORWARD. AND SO THAT WAY, PRIOR TO THE BILL DEADLINE OF FEBRUARY 21ST, WE HAVE THE BOARD'S APPROVAL ON SPONSORED LEGISLATION. HOWEVER, SPONSORING LEGISLATION MOVING FORWARD DOES NOT LOCK IN LANGUAGE. AND SO WE ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONTINUE REVISING. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'VE HOPEFULLY BEEN ABLE TO READ THE POLICY THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON IT. BUT NOT LOOKING TO WALK THROUGH EVERY ITEM UNLESS IT'S OF COURSE, THE INTEREST OF THE BOARD. BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO NOW HIGHLIGHT ARE SOME RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS. THESE ARE OPTIONS. HOWEVER, YOUR OPTIONS ARE TRULY UNANIMOUS OR EXCUSE ME, UNLIMITED NOT UNANIMOUS, UNLIMITED. SO YOU CAN PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT HERE ON THIS LIST. BUT ONE OPTION IS TO SPONSOR THIS LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ARTICLE THREE AS PRESENTED WITHIN THE BOARD PACKET. A SECOND POTENTIAL OPTION IS TO SPONSOR THIS LEGISLATION TO AMEND PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE ARTICLE THREE WITH A CHANGE TO THE SECTION 5536, WHICH RELATES TO BOARD COMPENSATION TO CONFIRM BOARD MEMBER COMPENSATION AT $600 A MONTH, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THOSE EFFICIENCIES WITH ALIGNING EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT WITH OTHER INDEPENDENT SPECIAL PARK DISTRICTS UNDER THE STATE, WHO CURRENTLY RECEIVE COMPENSATION AT $100 PER MONTH FOR SIX MEETINGS. AND THEN THE THIRD OPTION IS TO SPONSOR LEGISLATION TO AMEND PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE ARTICLE THREE WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED IN SECTION 5536. SO WE WOULD REMOVE THAT FROM OUR PROPOSAL AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REST OF THE PACKAGE. CORRECT? $600? CORRECT. $100 A MEETING FOR SIX MEETINGS EQUALING 600 FOR OTHER SPECIAL PARK DISTRICTS UNDER THE CODE. AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PULL DOWN MY PRESENTATION AND TURN IT BACK TO THE CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS BY ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS? I'LL SUPPORT OPTION THREE. QUESTION WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. CORRECT. SO THIS IS THE DRAFTED LEGISLATION. SO THE WHOLE PACKAGE THAT WE WOULD SUBMIT TO LORI WILSON ALL RIGHT. SO IF WE'RE SUPPORTING THE PACKAGE EXCEPT FOR THE COMPENSATION PROVISION THAT'S OPTION THREE. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YES, I WAS CORRECT. I SUPPORT. I'M SUPPORTING THE PACKAGE THAT WE'RE SUBMITTING WITHOUT THE COMPENSATION PROVISION. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? COULD WE DISCUSS THE COMPENSATION ONE? SURE. BECAUSE I'M DEFINITELY NOT FOR THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE, BUT SINCE WE'RE WORKING WITH DIFFERENT AGENCIES, SHOULD WE JUST KIND OF LOOK AND DISCUSS KIND OF WHAT'S PRESENTED HERE AT ALL? BEFORE WE KIND OF DECIDE ON AN OPTION BECAUSE FOR ME I THINK AS FAR AS THE ONE SECTION THAT STICKS OUT IS JUST AS FAR AS THE SECTION ABOUT COMPENSATION. AND. YEAH. I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO DISCUSS THAT. WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS. ONE WOULD BE TO REVERT BACK TO 600, WHICH I'M TOLD IS WHAT OTHER AGENCIES IN THE STATE, I GUESS IT GUESS IT IS, YEAH STATE OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS BY WAY OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS. I BY WAY OF CONTEXT, UNDER THE CURRENT CODE SECTION, SPECIAL PARK OR REGIONAL PARK DISTRICTS WHO OPERATE UNDER THIS PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE ARTICLE THREE CODE SECTION RECEIVE $100 PER MONTH FOR SIX MEETINGS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHICH RECEIVES $100 A MONTH FOR TEN MEETINGS. IN RECENT YEARS, THIS BOARD HAS ADOPTED PERCENTILE INCREASES, WHICH IS PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT CODE SECTION IN THE EXISTING DRAFT FOR, C UNDER SECTION 5536, WHERE YOU ARE ABLE TO INCREASE UP TO 5% IN ALIGNMENT WITH DIVISION 10 OF THE WATER CODE. WITH THOSE PERCENTILE INCREASES THIS BOARD IS CURRENTLY COMPENSATED AT $133.69 PER MONTH PER MEETING FOR UP TO TEN MEETINGS PER MONTH. WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSING IS SHIFTING FROM A PER MEETING REPORTING PROCESS TO A LUMP SUM REPORTING PROCESS TO ELIMINATE THE [00:10:01] PAPERWORK. SIMILAR OR TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS RECENTLY DONE WITH THE THE MILEAGE REPORTS FOR BOARD MEMBERS. SO THAT WAY IT WOULD BE A MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS FOR BOARD COMPENSATION. THE REASON FOR THE $1,000 IS THAT $100 FOR PER TEN MEETINGS PER MONTH, AS WRITTEN IN THE ORIGINAL CODE SECTION, AND THEN THE $600 IS FOR ALL OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS UNDER THIS CODE SECTION, EXCEPT FOR THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT, WHO RECEIVE $100 PER MONTH PER SIX MEETINGS PER MONTH. AND SO THAT WAS THE SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION. I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED, BESIDES, MY CONCERN ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE, WAS THAT DOING IT WITH $1,000, AS FAR AS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF MEETINGS PEOPLE HAVE, IT'S EITHER AN OVERPAYMENT OR UNDERPAYMENT, AND IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL WORK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD COMPLETED IN MEETINGS. SO THAT'S AN ISSUE. AND THEN THE PERCENTAGE. AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF MORE OF A OVER OR UNDER PAYMENT THAN WHAT WE VOTED ON IN THE MILEAGE. SO THAT WAS MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE. AND THEN AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO REVIEW THE OTHER SECTIONS, THEN BEING ABLE AS FAR AS TO DISCUSS WHAT'S BEING DONE IN SOME OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, LIKE I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY CONFLICT WITH OTHER SECTIONS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS WHAT I SAW IN THAT. SO BEFORE I PICKED AN OPTION. YEAH. AND I WOULD ADD I PERSONALLY THINK THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT OTHER AGENCIES MAKE. I THINK THAT WE ARE PROBABLY BY FAR THE LARGEST PARK DISTRICT AGENCY IN THE STATE IN THE COMPARABLE AGENCIES. AND I THINK AT OUR CURRENT RATE, THAT WE'VE GOT 133, 69, THAT'S A LITTLE UNDER EIGHT MEETINGS PER MONTH. I KNOW I DO ALL THAT. AND THE VERY NARROW DEFINITION OF THE MEETINGS WE HAVE, I MEAN, I'M AT MY SECOND MEETING TODAY, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GET CREDITED FOR IT BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING PER DAY. AND I UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY THAT'S THAT WAY. OR WE'D HAVE SEVEN MEETINGS IN ONE DAY. BUT I, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ARGUE IN FAVOR OF A THOUSAND BUCKS. I THINK IT TAKES AWAY ALL OF THE. I WOULD FEEL MORE COMPENSATED. ALTHOUGH I THINK I MAKE IN SOME CASES, AND I KNOW FOR A FACT ALMOST, THAT ANY BOARD PRESIDENT IN THIS ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO GO WAY OVER A THOUSAND BUCKS A MONTH. YEAH, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. THE PAPERWORK IS MUCH LESS IT REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE MEET WITH STAFF THAT WE DON'T GET PAID FOR, WITH CONSTITUENTS THAT WE DON'T GET PAID FOR. AND COMPARING OURSELVES TO OTHER PARK AGENCIES IT SEEMS LIKE IT'D BE MOVING OURSELVES WAY AHEAD, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO COMPARE MYSELF TO A WATER AGENCY. SOME OF THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT SPEND AS MUCH TIME AND HAVE AS MUCH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AS WE DO. SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MOVING TOWARDS THE THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH WITHOUT ALL OF THE PUTTING IN PAPERWORK DOING IT AT JUST A FLAT RATE. RIGHT. AND IF I MAY, IN TERMS OF COMPARING OURSELVES TO OTHER AGENCY WITH THIS AMENDMENT, IT WOULD ALIGN ALL SPECIAL PARK DISTRICTS UNDER THIS CODE SECTION. AND SO IT WOULD NO LONGER BE THAT THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT IS RECEIVING A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION, BUT IT WOULD PUT US IN ALIGNMENT WITH OTHERS. ALL RIGHT. SINCE WE'RE DISCUSSING. A THOUSAND A MONTH WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT PAY RAISE FOR ME. AND I'M JUST NOT WILLING TO SUPPORT A PAY RAISE. 600 A MONTH WOULD BE A DECREASE FOR SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS. AND THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME. WELL, THERE'S SEVERAL BOTTOM LINES. ONE, I WAS ELECTED TO THIS OFFICE WITH THE EXISTING RATE OF PAY SET IN THE CODE, AND I DON'T FEEL RIGHT CHANGING THAT GIVEN THAT I WAS ELECTED AT THAT RATE. THE OTHER PROBLEM I HAVE IS THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WOULD BE A PAY RAISE AT A TIME WHERE WE MIGHT BE GOING OUT FOR A REVENUE MEASURE. AND LASTLY, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC IN THE LEGISLATURE FROM WHAT I'M HEARING. [00:15:06] SO I THINK IN ORDER NOT TO JEOPARDIZE THE ENTIRE PACKAGE, I AGAIN SUPPORT OPTION THREE, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE PACKAGE EXCEPT FOR THE COMPENSATION PROVISIONS TO LEAVE THEM WHERE THEY ARE AS WE WERE ELECTED. I THINK THOSE ARE EXCELLENT POINTS, WHICH I HADN'T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. I WOULD BE WILLING TO AGREE WITH THAT. I'M ACTUALLY WILLING FOR OPTION THREE. SO THEN IN THAT CASE, TO MAKE THIS QUICKER BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING PAID MUCH AROUND HERE. [LAUGHTER] SPEAKING OF WHICH. LET'S GET A MOTION AND A SECOND REALLY QUICK. WELL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE SUPPORT A RECOMMENDATION OF THE FULL BOARD THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE BE SUPPORTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE COMPENSATION PROVISION. WHICH WOULD IN FACT BE OPTION THREE. OPTION THREE, LEAVING IT AS IS. OKAY. SURE. GO AHEAD. BEEN PUBLIC COMMENT YET? I'M GOING TO GET A SECOND AND THEN WE'LL GET A PUBLIC COMMENT. RIGHT. OR WHICHEVER THE ORDER IS, I DON'T CARE. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? NO. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? NO. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY, I'LL HAVE A SECOND, IF I MAY. SECOND. OKAY. OPTION THREE. WE HAVE A MOTION AN A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AND HEARING NO PUBLIC COMMENT. A LL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES THREE ZERO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EXTRA WORK THAT YOU PUT IN ON THIS. THANK YOU. YES. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING THIS. YEAH, THERE WAS A LOT, A LOT THAT JUST AS FAR AS THAT, REALLY UPDATED THE CODE AND THEN JUST SOME IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WERE CODIFIED INTO CODE AND SOME OTHER JUST AS FAR AS SECTIONS THAT REALLY DID NEED TO BE REMOVED AND UPDATED. SO OVERALL LIKE THIS IS MUCH STRONGER GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU ALL AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. SO WE CAN MEET THE DEADLINE AND LET US ALL KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WE CAN DO AS LEGISLATION PROGRESSES. YOU WANT US TO GO TO SACRAMENTO AND TESTIFY. YOU WANT US TO. THANK YOU. AND IF I MAY, I THINK ALSO SINGING THE PRAISES OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER LORI WILSON'S OFFICE AND HER LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, MARK ROSSOW, WHO HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN FANTASTIC PARTNERS ON THIS. THEY'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING THE DECISION OF OUR BOARD ON WHAT IS MOVING FORWARD WITHIN THE PACKAGE. AND THEY'VE BEEN REALLY RESPONSIVE AND COLLABORATIVE IN MOVING LANGUAGE FORWARD. AND LISA, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WILL PROBABLY BE SOME FIXES THAT OCCUR AND CHANGES. AND I KNOW THERE'S AMENDMENTS AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO BILLS. WILL YOU KEEP US INFORMED OF WHAT THOSE ARE AND LET US BE A LITTLE PART OF THE MAYBE THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS? ABSOLUTELY. SO AS ALL SPONSORED LEGISLATION THAT THE PARK DISTRICT MOVES FORWARD, WE STRIVE TO UPDATE THE BOARD AS CHANGES COME THROUGH. I WILL SAY, ANYONE, THAT THIS LEGISLATION GOES BEFORE LIKES TO PUT THEIR FINGERPRINTS ON IT. SOMETIMES IT'S SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE WILL CONSIDER, AND SOMETIMES IT'S JUST A LANGUAGE PREFERENCE. AND SO WE'LL WORK THROUGH THOSE AMENDMENTS AS THEY COME THROUGH AND KEEP THE BOARD UPDATED. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN THAT CASE, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE ADJOURNED. ANYMORE MEETINGS TODAY? NO MORE MEETINGS TODAY. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.