Board of Supervisors — 2022-02-08

Good

morning and welcome to the February 8, 2022 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting that I hereby call to order. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll? Supervisor Hart?

Chair Hartman I do. Just a quick announcement we've had some questions recently about utility costs and fees as you recall residents of the unincorporated county are part of 3CE Central Coast Community Energy and I asked Ashley Watkins from our sustainability division to just quickly respond to some of that to get information out where people can find more information on the website.

Good morning Chair Hart, members of the board. Yes we have been hearing some concerns from residents about increased energy bills and I just wanted to assure the board as well as members of the community that those increased bills are not as a result of joining Central Coast Community Energy so Central Coast Community Energy is still providing rates that are on average 2% below Southern California Edison.

We attribute the increase to a recent increase in transmission and distribution charge that took place in October, and that's actually related to Edison's delivery of energy and not as a result of Central Coast Community Energy. We also typically see there's an increase in energy use during the winter because people are home, they're using more appliances and that's even more exacerbated with COVID. So if people are looking for more information they can go to Central Coast Community Energy's website and that is And they have a call center number there where people can call and ask more questions about their bills.

Good, thank you Miss Watkins Supervisor Williams.

Well in just a I'll phrase it as a question for the purpose of the report. First can you articulate what the SCE rate increase, at what scale is very significant and then even though we're getting more of the questions from the south I suppose. The rate increase in PG&E was much higher so isn't it true that now The PG&E rate is 30 to 40% higher than the 3CE rate for those living in mid and north county.

Yes, Supervisor Williams. That's correct PG and E's rates are typically quite a bit higher than Southern California Edison's and they recently had another rate increase the Southern California Edison increase was I believe about 2 cents a kilowatt hour and was supposed to result in an average of $10 increase per average household. But I think it's important to note that transmission and distribution rates, which are the actual delivery of energy to a customer. They typically make up about two thirds of your bill where the generation cost, the actual procurement of energy, which is what Central Coast Community Energy is doing, is typically only a third.

So it's a much smaller chunk of your bill. And also just noting that the reason why Edison is increasing these transmission and distribution rates is related to ongoing grid infrastructure development and hardening the grid to prevent things like wildfires.

Thank you very much for that clarification Miss Watkins. So we need to approve the minutes of February 1st, 2022 may I have a motion?

So moved. Second

and could we have a roll call vote Madam Clerk?

Supervisor Hart?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously and do we have any announcements today Madam Clerk? Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have no changes to our agenda today but I do have a couple quick announcements to remind the public I would like to remind the public that the Board of Supervisors meetings are being interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish. We are broadcasting our meetings in Spanish both for Cox Cable subscribers in South County as well as Comcast cable subscribers in North County. Members of the public can now view our meetings in Spanish by turning on the secondary audio programming also known as SAP or SAP under their language settings. That information is also being currently provided through the TV scroll.

Lastly, I would like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today of the board's updated methods of public participation. For the Board of Supervisors' methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page 2 of the agenda. Members of the public can attend meetings in person in both the Santa Barbara Board Hearing Room Chambers as well as the Santa Maria Board Hearing Room Chambers. Please note we are following all local and state guidelines and requiring indoor mask usage for everyone over two years of age regardless of vaccination status If you attend the board meeting in person, you will be required to wear a face covering mask or face shield with drape at all times regardless of vaccination status.

Information regarding how to properly wear excuse me how to properly wear a mask has been posted throughout both locations if you do not have a mask that fits properly we can provide you with one Additionally, for those unable to wear a mask for any reason we can provide you with a face shield with drape. Lastly public health is encouraging social distancing due to the highly infectious Omicron variant and this pertains to both hearing room chambers I would also like to remind the public that if you require any special accommodations please contact the clerk of the board to make that request preferably on the Friday prior to the board meeting Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment virtually may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2.

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing important information about joining the virtual meeting. Once the chair has announced the item you want to comment on please join the meeting with the information provided. You will be placed on mute until it is your turn to speak The clerk will call you by name. When removed from mute, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted.

If you are using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. Each person may address the board for up to three minutes and this is at the discretion of the chair. If you have any questions please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805-568-2240 Again that's 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.

Thank you Madam Clerk. Turning to our administrative agenda, I have that Supervisor Nelson has pulled item A1 and A4 and a member of the public would also like to speak on A4. And Supervisor Williams has pulled A9 and A3. Are there any additional items that anyone would like to see pulled from the administrative agenda? Anything in Santa Maria? And nothing here.

Okay, let's go first to A1. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record?

Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item number one is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the approval and execution of a sub, excuse me, subordination agreement subordinating a county of Santa Barbara as successor agency to the former County of Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency loaned to a cash out refinancing loan to Timothy John Werner And Richard Paul Gilman, trustee of the Richard Paul Gilman 2017 Family Trust for the Paradise Ivy LLC Plaza loss.

Thank you Supervisor Nelson. I

have a few questions for staff

and I believe Dinah Lockhart is here and she's coming to the podium right now so go ahead Supervisor Nelson

Yeah, I guess my first question is this a required action by the board or is this something that we have some discretion on?

Good morning Chair Hartman and Supervisor Nelson. No, actually this is something that the board has discretion on in the staff report we provide the board a number of options that were considered by staff and they are still available to the board one of those options include option number one which is on page two I'm sorry option 2 which is to take no action. So the county could choose not to subordinate its $717,000 redevelopment loan to a new bank loan.

That's certainly an option for the board and there are several others there.

All right, thank you Ms. Lockhart. I guess I just have a concern about taking cash out of this project potentially at the top of the real estate market in the future I'm not fully comfortable with that. I like to, and I know this is not my district. I was just looking at it from a fiduciary role that we have here at the county to make sure that we're protecting those taxpayer dollars Happy to hear if that's a concern of any of my other colleagues.

I will chime in because this first came up when it was in my district and then it went to Supervisor Hart's district, but I think staff agreed with you, Supervisor Nelson, but there's enough equity in the property that they believe that the county is covered. Supervisor Hart?

Yeah, just wanted to add too that I know County Council has worked with The department very closely to make sure that the options that are available to the board were properly vetted legally. And this seems like, you know, the course that is protective of the county's financial interests. It would be nice to be able to leverage this moment to have some additional affordability in this project but it doesn't appear that that is a realistic legal option available at this time.

Supervisor Williams.

I'll chime in and Brown Act with briefly with Supervisor Hart, but I had the same concerns that you did Bob and And I think the most important thing, of course, is that we make sure that the owners get into compliance with our affordability guidelines and adhering to the affordable ability guidelines that exist. And I understand that that's been questionable.

And so to me this is an opportunity to highlight something that isn't working well and that we hope can be addressed. And if there's anything from a board that's needed To address it. I think you have at least four interested supervisors, probably five.

Supervisor Hartman. Yeah, so I think the question is if there is anything like that needs to be done with this be the time to make sure that we're all comfortable there. I'm okay with deferring to my colleagues. This isn't their area either that they represented previously or now. So if everybody else is comfortable with it, I'm ready to move forward. It caught my eye as something that we don't necessarily have to do and you know that there's already problems on the property There's some other issues, this might be the time to look at it.

The thing is here is we're not preventing them from taking cash out. It's the question about whether we subordinate our equity in the property to this new loan and they may not get the same terms but we can still stay in our number one spot or at least above any new cash outs or refinancing. So again just as a fiduciary on this board that's what I was looking at but I do ultimately defer to my colleagues on this

Miss Lockhart, did you have anything else you would like to add to the conversation?

No. I would just simply add that we continue to work with the property owners on compliance and they have been open to receiving staff's recommendations on improving documentation procedures and so forth. So that's all that I would add.

Okay. Is there a motion to change staff recommendation? If not, we'll just include it with the balance of the agenda unless Supervisor Nelson, you'd like a separate vote.

I would not.

Okay, then we'll include it with the balance and then could we go directly to a for supervisor read that into the record Madam Clerk and then Supervisor Nelson you can make your statement

chair Hartman and members of the board administrative item number four is from the county executive office. It is to reconsider the circumstances of the existing state of emergency and we have four requests to speak on this item from

Supervisor Nelson, did you want to go first?

I would defer until after public comment. Thank you.

All right.

And Chair Hartman and members of the board we are going to begin on Zoom with Maria Kessner to be followed by Tom Becker and I would like to note for members of the public who are on Zoom we will have a timer running here in the hearing room that you will be able to see thank you Maria

Miss Kessner.

Okay, you had to unmute me.

We can hear you please go ahead. Hello, can you hear me? Yes we can.

Okay okay good morning Board of Supervisors a state of emergency is so dire that the County of Santa Barbara had no COVID report to present to the public during the board meeting on February 1st 2022 after Nick Welsh from The Independent brought us an article written in The Independent on January 12th 2022 and I quote stating the number of new COVID related hospitalizations could increase To 848 patients in the next four weeks, and the number of patients sent to the ICU would jump from 10 to 41 more dramatically. The number of deaths they were told by public health director friend over your nose so could shoot from present 578 to no less than 781 by the month's end. Supervisor Bob Nelson responded by castigating the numbers, the reckless and irresponsible adding they only promote panic.

Later he suggested they could provoke legal fodder to teens already teetering on the brink of suicide. Nick Ross also wrote and I quote, The real issue is not so much bad capacity as it is staffing. As of February 6, the average seven day case rate is 146 with one death on a total caseload of 8483 cases in Santa Barbara County. Total death rate of the pandemic is 614 individuals. The total of 848 483 cases on one Omicron death is a death rate of 0.001% for seven days, total death rates is 0.76% on all three variants of COVID together over two year period. We've heard the CDC director Rochelle Walensky that 75% of those who died with COVID had 45 comorbidities. We also know the CDC group pneumonia influenza and COVID deaths together called PIC deaths as per CDC website And we know that the PCR test is not very accurate.

I can attest to that because my daughter tested positive for the Omicron, rinsed her nose with saline solution and two days later tested negative and she had the Omicron a month prior to that. Does Williams voice his concern two weeks ago about people from out of town calling into board meetings, yet he's apparently not concerned about federal dollars buying up local and state governments around the country through the cares act. He's also not worried about a wide open southern border with Biden administration for allowing illegal immigrants In from all over the world, flying them around the US for their final destination. And last but not least, a state of emergency can only be called if the threat overwhelms the current resources of the states which it doesn't and the orders and regulations shall be in writing and take effect immediately on issuance.

The temporary suspension of any state ordinance regulations rules shall remain in effect until the order regulation is received by the governor. The governor will obtain determination of the state of emergency

I didn't realize it had that kind of a noise, but Ms. Kessner you did recommend that we have a timer that you could see and so this is our first attempt at it. And may we have our next public speaker Madam Clerk?

Yes Chair Hartman and members of the board my apologies we will try and figure that out. Our next speaker on Zoom is Tom Becker to be followed by Amy Smith thank you.

Mr. Becker.

And Tom, it appears you are unmuted if you can please proceed with your comments. If you are speaking we cannot hear you.

Should we go to Dr. Smith and then come back to Mr. Becker?

Yes, thank you. We will proceed with Amy Smith and then we will attempt to go back to Tom Becker. And Tom, you do have a call-in information on the Zoom invitation that was sent to you so perhaps you can call in with your phone if you're having issues with your computer microphone. Thank you. And we will now go to Amy Smith.

Good morning. Good morning Chair Hartman, good morning supervisors. I am very concerned as well as Maria Kessner about the state of emergency declaration and the standards used to justify that especially considering that as a society we've lived with flu for you know a long time and that takes many lives every year although it seemed to vanish during COVID but that's probably because of categorization errors But at the same time, having the option to declare a state of emergency pretty much at any time because of a low level deadly disease that takes vulnerable people is a very chilling prospect. And I've been very nervous about this since March 2020 and many other people have. And I am very concerned to know what the bar for considering something an emergency Now is in your minds as you made this decision to continue declaring this an emergency, we were told in the beginning two weeks to flatten the curve.

We understood even then that you can't stop an epidemic. The only hope was to slow it down a little so that it wouldn't overwhelm healthcare facilities so that things could be brought into in line to make sure there was enough capacity to treat people But then we find out that effective treatments that were figured out were suppressed and kept from the public, and doctors were punished for using them. And people were censored for talking about them including medical doctors with personal experience treating people with these things from places like YouTube at the mainstream media. They get slandered as disinformers. And so, you know the maintenance and the inflation of the situation into an emergency rather than trying to address and minimize the problem is unfortunately there's a lot of evidence that that's what took place and continues to take place because the hospital still doesn't allow people to have things like ivermectin when it's been shown very effective in early treatment all over the world.

So This is what has to be, you know, to get the confidence of the public. We need to know what your basing emergency on where is the bar? And is that just something that can be brought up anytime as politically convenient for any reason and rights can be suspended which, you know, the Constitution doesn't say emergency it doesn't say we can be ordered all manner of our lives can be controlled businesses can be shut down all these things Because of an emergency, especially on the level of a flu something we live with every year. So this is very serious and I look forward to hearing what the justification for continuing to declare an emergency for a very treatable version of this variant. The death tickers down thank God so people are not dying in Santa Barbara County that's great news what are you doing?

Thank You Supervisor Williams

well first of all people are still dying but secondly The speakers are straying far from the topic. The question at hand is whether there's circumstances around the pandemic that are significant enough whether people should be able to provide testimony through Zoom or whether we can meet virtually. We've always met in person but we provided the opportunity for some people to do it virtually if that is safer for them. So, I just ask the public speakers to kind of not drift from the subject matter.

I believe that they're questioning the underpinnings of an emergency so I think it's legitimate. Is Mr. Becker back yet?

Chair Hartman and members of the board Tom Becker will be calling in and he needs a few moments to do that so we are going to our speaker here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room Chambers Gretchen Murray and then we will return to Tom Becker. Gretchen?

Good morning, Supervisors. Thank you for letting me speak. I have a slightly different approach than the last caller. My question would be to you is to define the criteria by which you can release the emergency or reduce it. And that should be publicly available, something that we can all read and understand it potentially have input towards. So that being said, my hope is as we go through these things, we can address things such as people who are requiring masks, people who are requiring vaccination status.

We don't need it for influenza so in the future this is becoming endemic, we shouldn't be needing it also for COVID. And that's something, there is a time frame and I understand that but it's something that I think this Board of Supervisors should pay attention to. And they should also pay attention to when we need a state of emergency what are the criteria for establishing that? And I understand death rates were bad in the beginning I understand they're coming down. They don't know at what level he'll consider the fact that we need to get rid of this because we're all really tired of it Thank you very much.

Thank you

And chair Hartman members of the board It appears that Tom is not rejoined zoom so perhaps we can move his comments till later on the agenda

All right supervisor Nelson

Yes, thank you Chair Hartman. I guess I first got a question because I think the public needs to get some clarification or at least understanding the way I do that currently the state of emergency that we have to require various restrictions in the community is specifically the mask mandate. That's not coming from this board. Is that correct?

CEO Miyasato

Supervisors through the chair, we are under a health emergency that was imposed in two ways. One was at the public health officer declared a health emergency. In addition, the Board of Supervisors did proclaim a local emergency.

And I think thank you. Thank you CEO Miyasato, but at this point any mask restrictions or many of these state of emergency provisions are coming from our public health officials.

Supervisors to the chair you are correct we have a health order that requires indoor mask mandates

And the reason why I wanted to make sure that was clarified, especially for those public commenters was because I get very many emails asking our board to vote in the mask mandate. And I want to make sure that public understands that that's not something that falls on the shoulders of this board within our purview at this time that falls on the shoulders of Dr. Anne Zorig and Dr. Del Ranoso.

So but what we do have under our purview is whether we are going to continue with The social distancing or resume meeting so we can have social distancing as part of in context of the public health order. So, you know this item here I'm going to renew my objection. I support the practice of holding remote hearings and look forward to legislation amending the Brown Act to reflect the advancements in technology and how technology can be made can make government more accessible to the public I do object to the need and rationale for a state of emergency and need to continue to impose restrictions and mandates under current circumstances requiring social distancing and mask mandates don't make sense.

When California can have the Rose Bowl, the Golden Globes, NFC Championship game and the Superbowl but we're telling the public that we on the dais can't be six feet apart or in the room it just doesn't make sense Restrictions and mandates undermine the public's trust and confidence in public health. And I cannot support this item, so I'd like a roll call.

And Mr. Becker has come back, so let's give him an opportunity to speak first.

Yes, Chair Hartman and members of the board we will now go to Tom Becker who is our final speaker on this item. And Tom, using a touchtone phone you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. We have unmuted you on our end so you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. You are still muted. Can you hear me? Yes we can please

proceed. Okay good thank you all right I submitted a letter this morning late submission i'm just going to read it into the record and then make a comment The public health department, Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. The state of California is lifting the mask mandate for indoor venues except for unvaccinated persons. If the county of Santa Barbara follows the state's course of action then the county must explain the science behind lifting mass requirements except for unvaccinated persons.

For the county to scientifically justify keeping the mask mandate in place for unvaccinated persons, then the county must answer the following scientific questions. And the answers must scientifically show that unvaccinated persons have a measurably higher COVID-19 transmission rate compared to both boosted and unboosted vaccinated persons. Now I have three questions submitted, basically asking the transmission rates between unvaccinated persons. The transmission rate for vaccinated persons who have received the booster and the transmission rate for vaccinated persons who are not receiving have not received a booster.

The state of California said, I think on February 15th they're going to lift the mask mandate for everyone except unvaccinated people Well, the state would have to scientifically show their reasoning behind that. The county can do the same. The County of Santa Barbara can follow the state's directive or the County of Santa Barbara can maintain the mask mandate for everyone. That's up to you. Actually it's up to the county health.

Now if the county keeps the all-inclusive mask mandate which they're allowed to do That would then be conclusive proof that the county believes that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are equally transmissible. You're equal. Well, if vaccinated and unvaccinated people are equally transmittable, then the county's employee testing requirement for unvaccinated people is unlawfully discriminatory.

Between a rock and hard place on this one. I will say that there's a lot of evidence out there that with the Omicron variant, that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are being equally infected and they're equally transmissible. Which would mean you either have to get rid of the mask mandate for everybody or keep it in place for everyone. You can't discriminate when there is no difference between vaccinated and

Thank you Mr. Becker and we have one final speaker, Madam Clerk and with that we close the queue for public comment.

Yes thank you Chair Hartman and members of the board our additional speaker is Justin Shores on Zoom and we will now go to him. Justin?

Thank you I do really like the ability to come into zoom and be able to participate so I do like what Supervisor Nielsen said about keeping Zoom somehow. So if there's some way we could find a way to have both in-person and Zoom so that we can still participate, especially since you guys have such a long schedule, a long day it would be, I think the Board of Supervisors would be the most important for that to happen.

Also, I do appreciate the comments on how it doesn't make sense to keep the state of emergency going. I really think that we need to start finding an off ramp for that so hopefully Dr. Ansorg and Dr. Reynoso can come up with something That goes with logic and not just indefinite mandates forever. So please, please, please reconsider the state of emergency. This is out to the county health as well so thank you for your time.

Thank you Mr. Shores and that ends our public comment on this item brings it back to the board. May I have a motion?

Madam Chair?

Yes please.

Supervisor Lavinio Thank you. I was just curious because of the fact that, you know, I had so many people contact me in the last couple of days based on, you know, the news it was coming out that CDPH would be removing the mask mandate and, you know, the first question obviously is what's the county going to do? Because I think we're going to be in a really weird position. I think we've probably been there before but now it's gonna be even more difficult if Direction comes down from the state and I already have already seen all over social media that hey, the mask mandates being lifted on the 15th or 16th.

And I'm curious as to the timeline of when public health is going to announce something for the county.

CEO Miyasato. Supervisor Lavinia through the chair so Dr. Ansorg and Dr. Doronoso are looking at that right now, they have been since yesterday. The state reached out to the public health officers just shortly before they went public so this was news to the public health officers throughout the state. They were reviewing that and they hope to have a decision out later this week.

And our current mask mandate goes through when? Is it March 1st?

It goes through the end of this month I believe

End of the month. Okay, you know I've continued to support this state of emergency. Request, but I think it is you know and I've kind of been pushing this to get to the end of the rainbow here. I think CDPH is starting to acknowledge that we are in a transition period and I think for us that next step in my mind is to remove the emergency status so. I'll also be supporting removal of the emergency status.

Supervisor Hart

Yeah, I think that the word transition is the right one. The state is apparently adjusting its approach and Dr. DeRunosa and Dr. Anzorg are going to take all of the information in local circumstances into consideration when they make their decisions about the local public health order but we got to remember too that right now our transmission rate is very high still it's coming down At a great rate, it's positive news.

People have responded by wearing masks and doubling down their efforts and that is causing the case rates to drop but they are still very high. I think they are close to 80 which back in the day when we were trying to shoot to get down to seven, that is 10 times what our goal was in previous rounds so I don't think we have to get down The dangerousness of this particular strain are proving to be less than they were in previous outbreaks, and that's good news. But the number of cases produce large numbers that have a large number of people in the hospital and deaths so we're not out of the woods yet. Maybe we can use all kinds of analogies light at the end of the tunnel whatever but we just need a little more patience from people no one is talking about Extending the mask order indefinitely.

We're talking about transition, we're talking about the right time to do the right thing in the right moment and you know it's just gonna require a little more patience not months maybe weeks and I think that people will be really relieved when we get to that place and it's safe and we can adjust our habits accordingly

Thank you and this will be on our agenda, our D item for next week. Supervisor Williams?

I agree with Supervisor Hart's comments on the general picture and you know I view this as an operational question The speakers have sort of put the entirety of their movement on this one item, when this item is really about what are the circumstances in a local jurisdiction and are there those circumstances that would behoove people to play it safe and in the hearing process have social distancing and remote participation.

You know I just find it ironic that all the people who enjoy remote participation are essentially asking us to vote no and would thereby terminate the ability to have that kind of participation, but I guess I'm ready to continue to vote for it one more time. But if cases are way down, I would be prone to vote against it in the future because you know, I don't think the board should be beaten up for basically operationally doing what those members of the public want to be able to do which is to offer remote participation

So will you make the motion?

So moved.

Second.

And would you call the vote, Madam Clerk?

Motion passes 3-2.

Madam Clerk would you read item A3 into the record

Chair Hartman and members of the board. Administrative item number three is from the Community Services Department, General Services Department and the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding a ground lease agreement service agreement and authorization of job order contracting for the establishment of the Dignity Moves Santa Barbara project. Dignity moves at county owned property located at 1016 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara California APM number 02921 2 0 1 9 and this is in the first district

supervisor Williams.

Well, I pulled this as to talk about the this project not for a separate vote just think it's important to highlight the progress that has been made and we do have our contract Good Samaritan here if there's questions but specifically this is the ground lease and the operating agreements for the partnership with Dignity Moves at Garden Street, which will provide 33 temporary housing spots. And it's part of the larger picture of the county in this year not including what is proposed at Super 8 We've got we're bringing a hundred units on online That's the Hedges House of Hope The 20th bridge house Thank you very much.

And if you're watching this hearing, and you know of a parking lot that is leaseable. The county is looking for opportunities that are the appropriate scale to house 50 folks. And I know this is difficult stuff. I've often said Homelessness is, tackling homelessness is one of those things where the solutions always end up being more unpopular than the problem is.

As much as people sometimes and overwhelmingly these last few years want solutions to homelessness that the reaction we usually get to any specific project is this isn't the right place. Greg, you've been in this for 25-30 years. I've been in this almost as long. Have you ever found the perfect spot? It's always not the right place. So we deal in an imperfect world and we deal with imperfect spots but I believe that this one is about as good as it gets.

And I'm really proud of this partnership and just wanted to make sure That the board and the public knew that this is moving forward. And we have a great operating agreement, and we're gonna keep it, keep the ship real tight, right? Because I think the urgency of making this project show the community that it can be done in a very functional way is what will open doors for solving the homeless problem or at least greatly reducing it.

Thank you Supervisor Hart.

Yeah well thank you Supervisor Williams for those great comments and taking off on them, you're right perfection is often the enemy of the very good and this is a very good proposal it's a great partnership with Dignity Moves and with Good Samaritan and there are a lot of eyes on this project because it's really interesting model that has great promise and we're all excited to get it rolling and get it up and working And to work intensely to make sure that there aren't any issues so that we can have a model that's replicable around the county because this is very hopeful and very exciting and in a great moment to celebrate milestone in the progress path to success.

Thank you. So, we don't need a separate vote on this. So Madam Chair. Yes.

Yeah I'd just like to make. Yes