drug paraphernalia and human waste, deposited on our properties, interference with auto traffic and endless convoy of heavy laden to push carts along the streets with persons stopping to dress and undress in public and depositing unwanted items on the sidewalks, a constant flow of pedestrian traffic all hours of the day and night that brings with it all of the above along with unbearable noise from outbursts of anger and frustrations, altercations, electronic equipment, all of which have taken a toll on our personal lives, emotional stamina, sense of community, financial costs to repair all of this and most importantly, the health and safety of us, our children and the San Lorenzo River habitat. Mayor Watkins, I implore you and your fellow council members to heed our pleas for help. We do need action now, not next week, not next council meeting now. I think we all realize that the Ross camp can't stay where it is, but while you're deciding how to proceed, we are stuck in an unacceptable situation. Until the camp is closed, we need protection for our neighborhoods that have been directly affected by the city, allowing this camp to escalate beyond reason or any level of tolerance. The three actions we are asking for now are a safe public river walk in an effort to help protect the river habitat and allow for clear and safe public access to the river walk that is currently being held hostage by this encampment. We ask that you move the boundary fence off of and away from the levy. Diagrams are in the packets that you received earlier this week. Protect river neighbors, provide 24 hour protection for Falker, Price and Grant Streets and the Tannery campus and all those who wish to return to the river walk. We desperately need safe neighborhoods as long as this camp remains. Camp community and management create a 24 hour camp management system with managers who will develop and enforce codes of conduct and rules in order to protect camp residents and the surrounding neighborhoods. The camp's current status as being unsanctioned yet allowed means no management which has led to the current out of control situation. Please know though that we are truly grateful and appreciative of the efforts made so far by the police department and the city for helping to maintain a level of safety for us but it's not enough as all of the above is still happening.  It does not go unnoticed. You will likely hear from many individuals tonight who are included in this group who will express their own concerns. Please listen with compassion and understanding. I hope that you will feel compelled to act now. After 31 years on Falker Street, I now live in fear. I can't tell you how deeply this has affected me. Please don't do this to another neighborhood. Thank you. Before we get started, if I could ask you, please in the sunglasses to not speak during the, no, no, no, this is not the time for us. I'm gonna go ahead and ask you to please sit down and not be distracting and if you don't want to then we can go ahead and ask that you leave the chambers. You can go ahead and leave the chambers if you're not interested in not being quite there. Okay. This other guy do get in here. I don't know. Okay. You can go ahead. I'm just saying or not, I'm just saying or not. Okay. Mr. Ph.D. Okay. We have a chance, we will, okay. We'll go ahead and ask that you, excuse me. Excuse me. Please sit down and if not, I will ask you, you've been warned, next time there's an outburst, I will ask you to leave the chambers. Okay. And if you're interested in speaking after our presentations then you can have your minutes as others have in this chamber as well. Okay. So now we have the next presentation which is from Robert Norris representing Huff and you'll be given four minutes. Turn. One minute. On the door. Oh well. Two good. Okay. We can come back to him. So we'll go ahead and move forward then with Manuel Prado on behalf of the West Side Neighbors and you'll be given four minutes. All right. Well, thank you very much. Particularly the last woman that spoke. My heart goes out for her. To her, excuse me. No one deserves to live in fear like that. I wanna address a couple of points. The first is, yeah, we keep mentioning Seattle as a success story. Seattle spends a billion dollars a year on their homeless. They've got 11,000 people. So I don't know, that's what roughly $90,000 per. I don't know if we have that tax base. Now, if you take it a step further and you sort of look, you say, all right, well, have they had any success? The property crime rate in Seattle is two and a half times that of Los Angeles. Four and a half times that of New York. To me, that does not sound like a model that we would wanna follow. Now, if you follow the research, recently 63% of those people in Seattle refused lodging. The primary reason was because there are too many rules. Another perspective here is that 40 to 50% of the people in San Francisco and Vancouver that are homeless claim they're there because of the generous offerings they have for homeless people. So most of all, I just wanna really make clear here that what we're trying to do through compassion here is actually the cruelest measure we could possibly take. Anyone here that has ever dealt with some of the addiction problem knows that what we're talking about here is actually considered enabling. We're making the problem worse. The problem is there from a drug addiction problem as well as mental health. We heard Dr. Leff say that over 50% were injecting drugs. 39% of these people have mental health problems. They need help. We need to provide them professional assistance. We don't need to provide them a way to perpetuate this lifestyle. It's not helping them in any way. Could I please have quiet back there? Yes. Thank you. So the other point that I just wanna make is the reason I'm here today is I'm a father. And the reason more people in my position aren't here today is because they're putting those kids to bed right now and they're taking care of them. They're looking out for the safety of those children. I'm fortunate enough that I could find somebody in my life that can fill in for me while I come to take care of this matter that really, really matters to myself and the rest of my community. My kids don't get to vote. No kids around here get to vote. But what we're talking about is a measure that is going to remove the safe places for them to play. Lastly, I'd just like to ask that we all respect the democracy that we're so lucky to have here. I'm sure everybody abhors what's going on at a federal level. But let's look at what's going on right here. What we're talking about, this state of emergency, it's ridiculous. I ask you to please go by the same measures that everybody else has to go by here. Let's vote on these things. Let's have hearings, let's research it. Thank you for your time. So we'll go back to the next presentation, which is Robert Norris, representing Huff. Members of the community and the city council. What's going on here is actually all about closing the Ross camp. It's not really about providing and dealing with the issues at the Ross camp, which could be dealt with tonight by establishing an emergency camp ground somewhere else for the overflow that's in the Ross camp, which is admittedly, it's overly crowded. It's got its problems. But that's not the interest of either the staff or the council, at least certainly a significant portion of it. Urgency procedures need to be passed tonight that allow accessible rather than theoretical alternatives for survival camp grounds, safe parking areas, shelters, and of course housing. I remember the toxic veto, the progressive majority gave to rent control in January and the Matthews minority. I remember the rent task farce passed earlier, which doesn't even begin to look at the real issues of landlord profit, rent raises, citizen flight, and cost of living, which are the real issues around these things. Having no substance to any real move to sustain what housing exists, we need to recognize the likelihood of growing homelessness and the simple undeniable reality of people sleeping on the sidewalks in the parks and wherever they must. In a Sunday Sentinel article, Mayor Watkins has shown here determination to meet this dispersal and deportation guidelines of March 15th when the council repudiated, which they reputed by a majority last meeting. Now, of course, we have the new April guideline, which is of course unilaterally proposed by the real brains and energy behind this. And I'm afraid the brains don't really amount to a real commitment to the welfare of the majority of homeless people in this community, Suzy O'Hara and Sheena Tull, sorry, Tina Schull. Sorry about that. I can understand why that's happening, but I have to point it out, not without any personal animus toward these two, but because what they are saying is a mythology, that housing exists, that these proposed solutions are actually gonna provide enough, even for the Ross camp, to say nothing of the rest of Santa Cruz. Now, last Wednesday, Attorney Anthony Prince of the California Homeless Union began training the homeless community on how to implement the federal Martin versus Boise decision. How can we, those of us who are homeless and those who are housed and interested, stand up to the city's run-em-out-of-town juggernaut? City Manager Martin Bernal's P&R panhandling team has repeatedly presented a false narrative of accessible alternatives, but these missing shelter survival camps or housing alternatives don't exist. Their hopes, their theories, they just aren't there and they haven't been there. We've seen time and time again, these promises have evaporated when the deadline showed up. The attorney's legal workshop discussed how local poor people outside can respond, what tactics can be used when threatened with destruction of their tents and given directions to move along to nowhere. How can a homeless woman cited for blocking the sidewalk, being in a park after dark, or being in a closed area respond? Now, more than ever, community members need to be on the alert for clusters of police cars harassing a lone individual, which is happening with some regularity. Video documentation is important. Personal presence can be helpful. Organizations like Huff, which I represent, Conscience in Action and Food Not Bombs are good points of contact. Donation should be going to unhoused folks directly, not to secondary non-profits whose administrative costs and membership restrictions act as barriers. The key weapon is the injunction. That's a court order. If you're interested in this, contact Huff at four, two, three, Huff, H-U-F-F. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have Phil Posner from Conscience in Action. First of all, I too wanna thank the mayor for allowing me to speak and the staff, the tremendous amount of work that you did put into your suggestions. I was gonna respond, mayor, to your article as did Robert a second ago. But I'm so devastated by the reality of the difficulty of this situation. I'm not gonna talk about what I thought I was gonna talk about. I really wanna talk about empathy. I'm only telling you that because it happens that my doctorate is an empathy. The specific thesis is how does empathy influence ethical behavior? And you cannot talk about empathy without talking about human suffering what that lady is going through. But what also Robert refers to is the suffering of homeless people who have no roof over their head. My heart goes out to you.  I think the problems are incredibly difficult. But Maxine, you scared me with your article as Robert suggested too by suggesting that we're gonna close the camp down. Where do you think those people are going to go? Are they just gonna go to someone's driveway which was a beautiful nice suggestion? Are they going to go to other places in our city that are gonna cost us more money? I hate to say it. I too find the camp unsavory, et cetera. But I don't think you have an alternative yet to move anybody from that camp until you have places for people to go to. But when you do, absolutely do it. But in the meantime, think about human suffering because Mayor, in your article, I got the feeling that you'd really, I don't wanna say, it's not fair. I gotta believe you know what human suffering is. What it means not to have a roof over your head. All I can do is please for all of us to show empathy for each other for the suffering that so many people have to endure and do the best that we can. Thank you. Is there Greg Benson here? Representing, I don't know if that's... Greg Benson? Okay, okay. So then our last presentation will be from Abby Samuels representing the freedom sleepers. Hi, I'm Abby. I'm here to talk about truth, not alternative facts, which seem to be presented in the last meeting. Also, I wanna thank Bonnie and Lee for looking for a place. I really appreciate that. Average, I wanna talk about, whoops, there we go. Oh, this is my old presentation. Shoot. The average age of, this is all wrong. Can I stop it and get the right presentation? Sir. Okay. So the average age is 50 years old, but they died, but the new one I have is more current. It's 47 years versus 77. The people that have died, 50 years old, 57, 68, which is beyond the 50 years old. At 55 people have died. We don't hear, most of these deaths are unreported. Now all of a sudden they're getting reported in the media. I wanna talk about health and safety. If you cared, you wouldn't be kicking people out from the rain from the doorways. You wouldn't be reporting deaths. You would be reporting the deaths of every single person who died. You wouldn't allow people who are homeless, people that are disabled to be homeless. You wouldn't allow seniors to be homeless. You wouldn't kick people out of the street after they just got out of the hospital, which actually will be illegal July 1st, 2019. Dr. Lef did not say to close the camp. He said to eventually close the camp. He never said it needed to be closed. He did talk though about harm reduction. By the way, there's rats all over West Cliff and the post office, are you gonna close West Cliff? They're all over Santa Cruz. I wanna talk about point in time census that was done by the fire chief. We counted 210 each tent having one to four people. The fire chief says 60 to 70% are occupied during the evening. So I did a 208 tents divided by 60% comes out to 145.6, but we estimate that there's at least 200 people sleeping there every night, probably closer to 280. I hope that you get enough, before you move them out, have enough shelter for 200, not for 100, based on a not a true fact. Let's talk about the strict rules in Seattle. It was mentioned in the last presentation that they have zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol use possessions and violence. It's true for violence and possession of arms. It is not true that they have very strict rules. They did a survey, which it looks like we're about to do a survey. So that was good in order to decide what to do in Seattle. I just looked on the web and I can find many low barrier shelters, which means people that use are allowed into the shelter. So there's a campus housing alliance, 100 low barrier beds, queen and shelter, which is supposed to open up soon, and that means drug and alcohol are not banned. As you say, you're looking for a different transitional place for the people at Camp Ross, you have to look for low barrier. The navigation center, that's from their website, drugs and alcohol are discouraged, but they don't just allow it. In fact, they have harm reduction approaches and they have minimum rules. So that means they allow drugs. I spoke to two different people, Bradford Gerber of the Low-Income Housing Institute in tiny homes, and as well as Nick Jones, who's a legislative assistant with council member Sawant from Seattle. And that's what someone else will talk about that. Thank you. So now, we have, if I could get a sense of how many folks here are interested in addressing the council, you'll be given two minutes. Okay, so please line up to my left and you'll have up to two minutes to speak. Good evening, Madam Mayor. I'm not gonna talk long. I'm the representative for the encampment. I understand how people feel. I feel the same way they do. Sometimes it gets rough, but everybody over there is not bad. So look in the mirror next time you wanna point fingers with people first. It's easy to solve. Come talk to us. We'll give you the manpower to create places for us to go. You just find the places that's away from people. We don't wanna be there anymore than you want us there.  I'm dealing, supposedly dealing with mature adults who have ideas of things for their future and for their children. All you have to do is come and talk to us and you can end this. Get ideas from the people that you're trying to move around on how to move them around. You have no problem. Oh, your time. Your time. Federal law though. We're not going anywhere. So don't print.  Go ahead. No. Hi. Hello everyone. My name's Alicia Kool. I help put together the Ross camp council, what you know as the camp council. The camp council has expressed to me numerous times that they would like a encampment that respects their privacy and their dignity. It's not that they're requesting a spot that has no rules at all. The thing is that they want a spot that's low barrier, a place that treats them like residents, something that's perhaps not short term. I spoke in length with Lisa, who is the chair of Dignity Village in Oregon. She says that the key to their success has been a low barrier model. It's not that they straight allow drugs type of thing, but what they do is they have a no illegal substances outside of your tent policy or outside of your spot. So if they see somebody who's intoxicated, they send them home, just like you would do in another situation. They don't say mandatory alcohol and drug testing or program to live there. That's the concern that I have with the model being proposed is like you heard the doctor say, 50% of the people at the Ross camp have that problem. We all know that people are not going to go into a drug program unless they're ready to. So forcing them to do that as part of a housing requirement is not going to be successful. What it's going to do is disband the Ross camp and put all those people who can't go into this other encampment back on the streets. What's going to happen as well is you're going to lose the solidarity that we have with the Ross camp and the council that I've helped establish there. If we don't move them to a low barrier option, which they want to go to, my work will have been, it's done. Like they're all going to disband. I have no more council. We have no more way to communicate with you. These are important issues. We can just assume that everybody at the Ross camp can go into a high barrier encampment. Sorry, you already went. Nope. Yep. Okay. Our next speaker. No. The jury Mandarin is going to happen again. Okay. Go ahead. Your turn. Hello. My name is Mike Dealey. So ladies, gentlemen, non-gendered and transgender people, it is no secret that as a nation, we spend far too much on our military budget. A couple of days ago, President Trump asked to increase the military budget to $750 billion. There's been a lot of fear mongering in our nation on the macro scale and the micro scale, thinking we need authority to create a safe environment. I'm asking you today to consider what Dwight D Eisenhower said. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross, unquote. And in this city, as a city staff mentioned earlier, we must consider long-term fiscal solutions. How many people in this room know that our military budget, our police budget, is $30 million a year? Give me half of that, give me 15 million, and we won't have homelessness to steal. We won't have a drug addiction because these are problems of despair, and these are economic refugees to our system that is at a peak in economic inequality in century. So let us consider, when we spend 30 million a year on our police force alone, is that really making us safer? What if we had 15 million of that to do other things over a period of 10 years? That's $150 million. With amazing people in this town, all the terrific organizers, volunteers, social service experts, could it be possible to eradicate homelessness? Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. Hey, how are y'all doing? I've met one or two of you before, but most of you know. I, you don't need to know my name. I'm an outsider to Santa Cruz, I just got here. And I just thought I'd poke my head in because this stuff actually does concern me. I do sleep outside. I'm not really, really, really struggling like some of the desperate people you guys are supposed to be dealing with. But it's not easy out there, especially when you're always looking for who around you is not trustworthy. I just wanna congratulate you all because it just seems like you guys are just really frugal. And I know that that's a great thing to be, especially with rising income inequality and the fact that the environment is kind of being devastated on a daily basis and environmental resources are drying up by the, I don't really know a number for that. You guys, potentially some of you might end up in one of these one day, which is really cool that you're able to stand that because to me, it kinda looks like farewell to Manzanar. You've got the walls in the back and it looks like even barbed wire in the very back. I don't know if I could live under those conditions. Maybe you can, which maybe that makes you a better person than me. However, I would say that in case you or someone you know or your kids or the kids of Santa Cruz County end up having to live in one of these for any length of time, you might make it a little more human because I don't think I would stay in there if I had any other choice. So in case people are desperate, you might get some, but otherwise I might have to try somewhere else. I'm here, Phillip. I mean, it's probably gonna be a repeat of the last time I was here. We were here two weeks ago with the same thing and then we, no emergency, right? But now we got an emergency. I still don't kinda get it. Camp Ross is the only real health emergency. If you close it, then there's no emergency. So declaring an emergency can only be because you want to have authority to have little camps all over town. And money can be had, it must be spent and declaring a shelter emergency does that. Let's not fool ourselves. There's no definition of emergency shelter crisis or what goal is acceptable. You're just saying that it is. That's on you, but the taxpayers, the renters, the businesses that pay the bills have actual property rights, should have a bit more say than those who contribute near nothing except their problems and have no property rights except those that you are willing to give away. Historically, California only shelters 25% of the homeless and that way a long time. So to declare the status quo in emergency is it's a kind of joke, you know? Anyway, California's behind the nation in this but also has two times the national problem. We have 11.6 times the national problem but still has 20%, a vastly higher percentage of our share of the national problem for our size. We're doing plenty for our share of the state's homeless. Maybe too much. It's possible we're attracting homeless. I see no admission that something is wrong with Santa Cruz to have so many more homeless than mostly everywhere else. There are pockets of extreme homeless here and there but we're right at the top of the list. I see no plan to change that. All I see is a shelter, shelter, shelter in perpetuity. And we should, I also see that there's NGOs lining up to get a piece of the money available. I may have a solution for you for a transitional encampment. Actually, I'm becoming kind of a fan of them. I've read all of Brad's material and looked at a lot of things online but there's actually a property on DuBois Street. 105 between the next 111 vacant lot, one acre fenced, one ingress, Hegress, Harvey West, close to the Coral Street Shelter and an area not unknown to a lot of homeless folks. It's been vacant since about three years and here's the interesting part that can be, it's currently being leased for 5,000 a month by Metro and their lease expires at the end of this year. For three years, I mean, for who knows how long this could have been used as a potential, really a pretty good, I think a very ideal location for both safe parking as well as, you know, a pilot transitional encampment. Again, in an industrial area, close to the services that homeless use. Something to think about. Thank you. I just wanna say that there's a lot of feelings flowing around this room. You guys have important decisions to make. This is a controversy issue. You know, we have heard from people both sides of the spectrum.  I asked, hoping that the city council made the best decision, was best for this community and then let's don't let the feelings get on the way and let's have a clear mind, clear thinking and let's come up with the best decision, you know, best choice for everybody and if tonight is not the best time to decide, you know, maybe hold it on and hold it for tomorrow and then your minds are clear, the feelings move out of the way and then come up with a best decision. Thank you. Thank you, council, for doing this very hard work. Susie, you're like Wonder Woman. I love you. My kids found needles in Harvey West Park over 10 years ago. This has been an issue for decades. First, I would say expand funding for our existing rehab facilities like Janice and Alto. I'm sure there are more, but I don't know about them. I would aim for, with the pilot program, doing both a low barrier facility as well as a zero tolerance facility so that you can separate the two groups into people who want help with their addictions and then people who just want help housing their children. And I haven't heard much about any long term low income housing. I think some of that $10 million could be earmarked to purchase land that then could be built upon if you guys work with the county and the different regulations. I'd like to see more structures like the one that just is going up on Water Street, the one down on Cathcart and Pacific. These are all five to six story buildings that are housing many, many people. I think some of them are not affordable, but if we could aim for something of that size and get the residents of the city to just stop complaining, we are growing. We are a city, we're not a town anymore, and we need to admit that and move with the times and provide housing for people. And as far as getting the homeless people involved in their own community improvement, if they're gonna be using these pilot programs, get them involved along the lines of Habitat for Humanity where they do sweat equity to be there the 10 hours a week volunteering, good ideas. Thank you, thank you. Elise Kazby, local activist. I started out as a young professional in the mental health field. I was in one of the most forward states in the Union, Massachusetts before the Reagan cuts. I'm saying this because I have been investigating homelessness. I've taken sociology courses, I have a BA. I've studied a lot of things that pertain to social activism and so forth. And I would say I've been in shelters here. I'm not ready to speak about that. I'm not ready to speak about my journey right now, but I will say that please don't insult homeless people by thinking that in three or four months, the most well-intentioned, intelligent investigations which only amount to an hour here or there per week are going to really help you to understand the challenge of homelessness. And I just wanna start with the fact that most of the people sitting on this council I would classify as neoliberals. Under neoliberalism, we have had a complete lack of housing that has been willfully and deliberately not solved. In Santa Cruz, we don't even talk about low income housing because we can barely address so-called affordable housing. Let alone actual just housing for well-to-do rich people. Okay, so as somebody who experienced homelessness because of domestic violence and because also at a certain point the agencies were just so poor and I was harmed by mental health providers, I wouldn't trust any of you. I'm sorry, except maybe Drew and maybe Sandy and Cruz a little bit because they are progressives who are not liberals. So I just wanna say we need in-depth research. Suzy, thank you. Thank you, Tina. It's a good start, long way to go, evidence-based and we're just getting started. Thank you. I too am also a member of this community of Santa Cruz and I do care about this community that I live in. Dealing with syringes and needles and where I go at locations, I've picked them up all around in the mountains, at the beaches, on the west, on the east. Doesn't matter what location about where the needles, I'm picking them up on my time. Not your time, but voluntarily my time. That's how much I care about your kids and your lives as well as you guys deal with mine. By the invasion of privacy and having a home, I too am also houseless. I have children here. I've raised those children. And as a father, I do care and also putting out the music that I play out in the public just to see fathers and their kids what I used to do. It's very hard and difficult for me to be happy as well. Just as you elders along, I've been gaining the knowledge and input by each and every one of you individuals. But what's been taken away is that heart broken love with children, the ones that I've had, the ones that I've helped create, just as you as yourselves and myself as well, living a life. If we still have a heart, it's still ticking. We're not dogs, we're not animals, we're human beings. How can we do that? By being picked on or by being invaded of our privacy. Please help us out.  I've tried to before. I got kicked out the second week, volunteering with downtown street teams in the alley. That's where it led me, going back into the battlefield here in Santa Cruz, leading elders who are older than each and every one of you individuals cleaning up our community. I was at home and I was listening to a lot about Seattle and how you're modeling some things after Seattle and their successes. There's an article that another gentleman actually referenced some of the data in this article. It's an autumn 2018, very comprehensive article in a national urban magazine called City Journal. They cite something very different from what you guys are citing about Seattle. They've had a huge increase in homelessness, crime and addiction and that has exploded in the last five years. And like the gentleman said, they spend a billion dollars a year in homelessness efforts. They cite, and I'm just gonna cite some excerpts from it. So they cite three myths. One is that many homeless are holding down jobs when in fact only 7.5% report working full time. The second myth is that homeless are native to Seattle when in fact more than half are from outside the city limits. The third myth is that homeless want help but there aren't enough services when in fact 63% of street homeless refuse shelter. The article states that the city's compassion campaign has evolved into permissiveness, enablement, crime and disorder. Citing an array of horrors including theft, drugs, fighting, rape, murder, explosions, prostitution, needles and feces. Yet prosecutors have dropped thousands of misdemeanor cases and police are directed not to arrest people for homelessness related offenses including theft, destruction of property and drug crimes all of which we see lots of here. It also states that compassion without limits is a road to disaster. Cities must stop seeding their parks, schools and sidewalks to homeless encampments. Data from Houston shows local leaders have reduced homelessness by 60% by providing service and enforcing a zero tolerance policy for street camping, panhandling and trespassing and property crimes. Who stands to gain? The big winners are the social services. They're the ones who stand to gain from homeless. Thank you, thank you. Okay. And is there any other members here who are interested in addressing the council that haven't already spoken? Okay. Hi, OS Y Salinas resident, President Salinas Munner County Homeless Union. So I'm about 40 miles south of you. I'm just really pleased and impressed that this is even an agenda item. And I appreciate that. The last three council meetings have been very invigorating. So thank you for at least forwarding the conversation that I've not seen in this whole region. I do have some disappointments, I guess. You know, this, if you close out the Ross camp, there's got to be a lot of people in this camp.  We have Martin Rivers Boise, which means that anywhere on public space, you already can't do anything about it. So you need to open up more space than just this 40. It's a good start, it's a very good start, but we're going to need, what do we do with the rest of the 95% of people who aren't going to be able to access that? You can get arrested for leaving your dog outside, but it's okay to strip people of all their bedding and let them sleep out in the cold all night. And that's legal. That's not right. So I hope that you're doing something better than this. I'd like to see a majority say yes on this sanctuary camp, please. You know, it needs to happen.  You know, the maturity factor of this naysay node camp because it's not perfect. People aren't perfect. Nobody's going to fit a mold. And you know, we just have to diversify, I suppose, and realize that people are different. You can't just put them in a box.  If you want to do it better, you know, people in trash organize space and people could set up an encampment, you just need to be able to pass people over so that in that way they can have some consistency in their life or routine, be able to be somewhere. If they can't be there, we'll then open up more space where they can be plenty of space throughout the city. And if not that, then it's back to the sidewalks back in downtown, the Elkhofs. It's going to be somewhere. I didn't really prepare to say anything, so thanks for letting me have a moment. I just wanted to say that while exploring solutions, we need to acknowledge that these humans are part of our community, whether they're drug abusers or not. I have encountered quite a few comments on Nextdoor and here tonight as well that suggest otherwise. So I hope that people will be open-minded to that. And I would also like to say that the vulnerable members of our community extend beyond children to those who suffer from mental illness, physical insecurity, disability, trauma, abuse, and many other reasons. I believe it's naive to think that just because one is grown that they are capable of caring for themselves and we need to expand beyond that mindset to find a feasible solution long-term. Thank you. Hello, my name is Travis and I've been homeless in Santa Cruz County for about 17 years now. Also part of the Food Not Bombs program for the last five to six years. I'm a sober individual. I do not do drugs or alcohol. And I'm also worried about the dirty needle problem myself. I was wondering if there would be any type of way we could set up a volunteer program of giving out containers so people could collect these dirty needles and return them not for any type of benefit, but for the benefit of the community that we're living in. Because I've definitely been finding a lot of more needles that we've been seeing for the last two to three years that I've been here. And I'm an independent homeless person. I don't approve of camps and walled spaces and working communities where people don't know how to feed themselves and don't know where to shop. But I do definitely agree on people having more faith in the long-term people that have tried to be better people in this community and are trying to protect the families of this community and be part of the community rather than destroying the community. We need some superheroes to start taking care of these bad boys from a bad boy lane. And I don't know who that's gonna be yet, but it can't just be the security guards and the police and those people. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Well, you made a good start. I'm happy to see that you actually are thinking about homelessness for over 30 seconds. It's given me some hope for a minute here. And I just really wish that you get a sanctuary camp tonight for the overflow at Ross to complete all of the people over there. Start feeding at Coral Street immediately, get some stuff from Costco or whatever, get food to the people. I see people digging out of the trash every day. I walk around with oranges in my sack every day to give people, give people sacks of bread or whatever. And it's really upsetting. I'd like to also bring some things to Civic and be a good place to put people. You can rent half the places downtown or empty. You could, all those commercial buildings, you could put 50 people there, 40 people there, 30 people there and fill up all those empty places. There's a lot of places we can put people. How about the university? How about the farm over there in the village? Why don't they offer a place to put the camp, the camp that we don't want or whatever? I like the woman's idea of separating the camps of people that just want to be alone and with their children and people that want to run them up. They could be in separate camps and at the university, they could say, oh, we're gonna surround them, they're gonna be self-policed, whatever, but it starts to think about other than, these are seven places the city owns. Well, how about the university? How about the depot over there that you took 130 people that were in the homeless garden project and told them they had to get out because you were buying the depot and moving it back and now it's empty for how many years? Has it been empty? Why can't you fill it with homeless people? Why can't you think of other solutions? Why can't you think of the Betz Hall? Why can't you think of other solutions? Please, I'm begging you. Good evening, I'm Scott Graham. There's a lot of people out there that think that if we do something with a Ross camp that that'll solve the homeless issue. Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's another 800 to maybe 2,000 people camped out all over town and all over the county that this little bit you're gonna do for the people of the Ross camp aren't even being affected by it. So it's a major issue. So I would recommend you declare a crisis. This is a crisis. There's thousands of people. There's not just the Ross camp. And as far as the concern people have with needles, why not put a deposit on them where people can collect them and turn them in for five cents or 10 cents or something?  There'd be a lot of people who would go out and look for needles and they'd clean the needles out of everywhere that where people are throwing them now and we can get rid of the needles that way. And then also I thought the county was a partner in this. So why aren't the county parking lots included in this study? The biggest parking lots in the city limits are not part of this study. Let's call on the county to say, hey, you'll put a little skin in the game. Thank you. And I believe that you'll be our last speaker. Hello, everybody. My name is Isaac Morris. I support what the people were trying to do because I think it's, now this condition, I've been in San Cruz for 13 years and I've seen what the rent is going up. I've seen this condition get worse and worse and the problem has never really been solved and dealt with. And I really think it's really need to show love and compassion to people because at the end of the day, we're just human beings. Everybody is entitled to affordable housing and shelter and it shouldn't be this and that. We need to really practice that and have compassion because as a youth myself, I think it's important that we do be aware of these conditions. They do affect families. They do affect mothers and all that. And we need to have a place for people to sleep because if not, they don't get after asleep. They're not able to function carefully. They're not able to make right decisions. They're not able to get back to the community. So it's important to look at these issues but also look at it effective way, how we can make this issue and people that are involved, especially in the community that it works together when it's not a pick or this and that that we all get together and starts off in a solution. Because if not, if you look at 10 years from now, Santa Cruz might turn into Carmel or might turn into another place and it's gonna keep getting worse. We can't, we could put money into it but we have to solve the solution. Because anybody can put money into something but if you don't solve the solution, it's the same thing repeating itself again. And I don't think people want to do with that.  Thank you. Don't see any other folks interested in addressing the council so we'll go ahead and close public comment at this time. I'll go ahead and return back to the council for action and deliberation but I will give us maybe about four minutes or so just to take a quick stretch break, run to the restroom and then we'll return back. Council members, so we're good to go at this point. So we'll go ahead and return back now to council deliberation and action. There's a lot of items before us. I'll go ahead and open it up to see if any council member wants to kick it up by some air coming. Sure. I should have, I had a question for Lee. So I think it was you and I actually now, yeah, I think you're the appropriate person to address with this. But I know that it was mentioned at one point during the presentation that the beds at the Salvation Army are not full and that was at some point, was that Susie? Okay. It was mentioned that the beds at the Salvation Army haven't been, aren't completely full and I was just wondering what are some of the barriers that people are addressing or attributing to not wanting to go there? Yeah, so the VFW is actually full. The program that's not full is the Laurel Street program. And it's, you know, what we have found with our engagement with the Gateway encampment what is that, I would say the majority of the women that we have talked with, their kind of comments back to us are predominantly not around concerns as to proximity to other sleepers and things that we would typically think about in terms of barriers with that kind of shelter model. It's what we're mostly hearing is that they have other plans. They're going back to their home communities. They have other housing plans in mind and they're just not interested in engaging. Okay, so now's the time for the council to have action and deliberation. We've heard from the community, so please allow this process to take place without interruption.  I'm also prepared to make a motion at any point. Well, I had a couple of questions and then we'll go ahead and then I'll return to you. One of which was asked. I was just curious also, Suzy or Tina, do you have any idea how many people are using the services over at HSC in terms of showers and other things in combination with being a resident in the camp? So I'm just curious if services there are being accessed or not? Just if you have a sense of that. I don't have a sense of that specifically if people at the Gateway encampment are crossing over and obtaining the hygiene services there, I don't have that data. Okay. And then you mentioned the armory was still under discussion. Do we have any idea how long that's going to take? Is that something the county's moving quickly on or do we have any ideas on that? Yeah, the county is engaging very actively with Assembly Member Stone's office who has taken this up and I know that there are conversations happening with the Department of the Military. We are still trying to suss out some questions of renovation and schedules and also talking to them about the fees. You might, I think we mentioned this a couple of weeks ago that the statewide fee schedule, they charge $880 a day. And that is what we did pay when for 20 years that site hosted the Winter Shelter and we were looking for some relief on that. So that's the two threads of the conversation but we don't have anything definitive as of now. But we are, I mean there is a lot of urgency and work going on about it. So I know we keep saying we keep hoping to hear but we do hope we have some imminent answers within a week or two. And then lastly, I guess I'd just like to make a request that working through the two by two, if it's possible we could also look at county locations. That I think we should try to build that partnership that way as well. Thank you. Questions? Yeah. Oh, he's so, Vice Mayor, coming. I had a couple other questions too. I just wanted to start also by thanking you all for the hard work that you've done to bring us all this information. It was a really very well done study on all these sites and with a limited amount of time. And so I just wanna say thank you for all the work that you did around this, all staff. Thank you very much. And I had a question, Council Member Glover brought up a couple sites, including the Santa Cruz Bible Church, Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church. And I was just wondering if any of those, because he identified that they had some space potentially available. I was just wondering if any of those people or if any of those institutions had reached out to the city in terms of being operators when some of the bids went out for safe parking programs. No. And I was also curious if some of the other institutions that did reach out about safe parking programs, whether or not they'd asked to have 10, 20, 50, what was kind of the range and numbers of cars that they were willing to and able to support. So the program that is funded through the LOI process, so that's the emergency shelter LOI process. It's part of the heap and cash kind of portfolio funding that we're getting from the county. The one successful applicant was the Association of Faith Communities. And their program that they are being funded for is a satellite program where it's kind of spread around the community on a small scale. So you're getting, say, up to 50 or 60 spaces, but at a dozen or more locations. And it's really the intentionality around that is to kind of get to what we had talked about earlier, having it small scale and somewhat manageable at each individual site. And the reason why I believe, and I can't speak for them directly, but what my understanding is, keeping that small scale allows for the individual churches that are participating to help manage the programs when you get to a much greater scale, which they've also considered at a parcel in Mid County, that the staffing requirements, the security requirements grow and scale. And so what they elected to really consider as kind of their first, say, foray into this program is thinking about more of that small scale satellite program that actually quite mimics their indoor shelter model as well. Can I just briefly add something before, and I'll go back to it. I just want to also bring to your awareness that the Star of the Sea Church is a alternative school site. So there are students there on an everyday basis. I know in the presentation it mentioned that Galt is also surrounding there is an alternative school that is actually functioned out of the Star of the Sea Church, just sort of as an FYI. Rita, I had another question on that topic. If that'd be on this safe parking program. We do have already in our ordinance the ability for individual churches to host three or so individuals in their cars in safe parking. Do you have any idea how many churches are doing that? I don't believe there's currently a kind of a sanction program with churches. I believe that this association of faith community program is the first kind of program that's trying to bring together those efforts in a coordinated way. Right now individual churches could, but not part of a program. Right, and I do believe that our existing code does allow for churches to host vehicles on their property. But we don't have a handle on how many are doing it, but it sounds to me as though the association of faith communities anticipates reaching out to interested churches and actually developing that as a program. Is that, they're actually ready to launch or imminently launching. So they actually already have the host of churches that have signed up. They've gone through a, quite frankly, perhaps multi-year, at least multi-month process to engage with our local churches. I know there's been varying levels of interest in participating, but they have been successful in bringing in a number of churches to support the program. And so really the question that they had for the city and the county is whether we would consider providing a lot as well. And if I could just pursue the questioning. Just with safe parking, I think the individuals are across such a spectrum. I am the working poor living in my camper or someone transient dealing drugs, et cetera, being the kind of problems that we hear about. And so could you describe the intake program to the extent you know it for that safe parking program? Sure. And what I will reflect on is what I've heard from the association of faith communities in terms of how they characterize the demographic that they're serving. So this is a fairly high barrier program in that folks that are in the program really do need to have, be able to adhere to the rules of each individual church that hosts and be pretty self-sufficient. And so much like their satellite program within the church facilities, this demographic of folks are folks that are able to adhere to rules and behavioral norms. And the way they characterize it is it's a pretty self-selecting group. I do understand from the perspective of intake that there is going to be a strong alliance with the county office of education as to identifying families with children for this program. I don't know at what numbers, but I know that there's intentionality of really trying to focus on families with children with this program. Thank you. Okay, okay. Council Member Glover and then Vice Mayor, come up. Great. I didn't think so. I'm sorry, I thought you had it. I did. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Susie, just from your experience and the research that you've done and just as an estimation, because I appreciate bullet number two, urgently develop and improve a small scale pilot program for either of the suggested encampment structures either safe sleeping or the transitional encampments. What in your mind does urgently pertain to because we want to, as you mentioned, and I totally respect in that analysis of wanting to be intentional in the implementation of it since we've been able to move so quickly over the last three meetings to get to this point, which was my goal. Now we can really start talking about the best ways to implement it. So what do you think about that? And then also the feasibility of establishing as one council member, was a community member mentioned, setting up two different styles of the camp, one low barrier and one sanctuary style closer to what Brent suggested in his proposal. So with regard to urgent, I think the qualifying factor would be identifying a site by next week. Quite frankly, I think we have to have a site that we are ready to move forward with. And so having a conversation around some of the sites that we've identified, the sites that you've identified really narrowing in on the intentionality around that so we can return with the utmost urgency, I would say, if we can fit it in next week, that would make sense and move forward with a site. I also do believe that it would be beneficial this week, perhaps tomorrow or the next day to put out a call for interest for hosting at a non-profit and or a faith-based site. While we did this evaluation really thinking about site control and city-owned properties, it does make sense to at least query our community about whether there's interest in hosting a site. I mean, as I mentioned, with the city of Seattle, that faith-based community really did shepherd that process. So in terms of urgency, I think if we had a site available, we could stand up a program within the timeframe that we're talking about. Second question, I'm sorry, I forgot. The feasibility of establishing the community member's suggestion of creating two separate barrier camps to be able to segregate the population and identify which ones are interested in immediate transition into a transitional encampment with the higher rule requirements as opposed to people that are just interested in going for a place to sleep but not having such high barriers as far as rules to be able to identify the different populations. Yeah, so in terms of feasibility, it's all about citing an operator capacity and as we add on to kind of this small-scale approach, new sites require an additional conversation about where those should be and then really engaging with our operator and nonprofit partners to understand their capacity to meet those needs. I will say, functionally separating out those populations appears to make sense. It will be very challenging citing in a transitional encampment that allows drug and alcohol use. I think just from the perspective of trying to make this happen and already dealing with a very difficult conversation about even one that requires these kind of norms and behavioral norms to adhere to. I will mention in my research, there are a number of cities who kind of dabbled with the idea of co-mingling or even hosting what I would refer to as kind of wet shelter and have not seen much success with that. It does manifest in the issues that come along with drug use and alcohol use with regard to really taxing the neighborhood and also contributing to illicit and illegal behavior. Just one more question. And then Council Member Brown. Thank you. So we heard from the community and wanting there to be the process of communication and public input with regards to the ordinances and the structures around there with the timeline that's proposed with April 17th as well as the urgent development of the small-scale pilot programs, what would your recommendation be with regards to addressing the issue of adopting and or conducting community input around the ordinance languages? I think it would be beneficial for the Council to consider that transitional encampment process, project charter and thinking about really the tail end of that process after you have engaged with the community, built kind of this buy-in and community acceptance and then also should the Council move in this direction have real live data to support success of a transitional encampment or another alternative shelter model? It's at that time to really think about how best to and I don't have the wording in front of me really look at those widespread policy changes that can reduce the barriers for innovation and actually think about how we can capitalize on the success of the pilot and think about it in a larger context. So I would suggest at the tail end of this project charter process that we would have that conversation about the ordinances. Council Member Brown and then Council Member Matthew. I think one of my questions was answered with respect to wet shelters, although I do think it's worth acknowledging that if we are not going to consider some alternative spaces that are a low barrier in that way, perhaps we wouldn't call them wet but more tolerant that we are not addressing all of the population at the gateway encampment. I mean, that just has to be said. So, you know, I do hope that we can have that conversation and figure out what to do about that because I don't think it's at least not for me. I'm not willing to say that we're going to close or you know, completely shut down the gross camp if we don't have those alternatives. It's really important that we recognize reality. I just want to say that. But so, and I also just want to say that there are so many people have come, I just have to say it now while I have an opportunity. There's so many people who have said to us, you know, kind of repeating this line that, you know, can be spread through our ever increasing and ever aggressive social media outlets that by doing anything tonight, declaring a shelter emergency or, you know, looking at transitional encampments that we are doing something that is entirely out of left field and it's going to invite a whole bunch of people. It's going to enable. It's, you know, the sky is going to fall essentially, but we actually declared on January 23rd, 2018 a shelter emergency. It is currently in place. So, it is not the case that we are doing something out of the blue and taking up this mantle of shelter emergency all of a sudden. It's happening. We're operating under a shelter emergency and we are in fact making a decision tonight about expanding or revising it as an alternative to the homelessness emergency that was proposed two weeks ago that many came out and said they didn't want us to do. So, I just have to be clear. I mean, I think we all need to acknowledge that. I wish more people would who were writing into us with some what I would consider to be a, you know, basis of misinformation there. And so with that, I will stop there and I will ask the question just to clarify. I think I'm getting an answer, but if you could just say it so that we're clear, you are asking us, although it's not in the staff, there is no site in the staff recommendation, you would like us to identify a site tonight. Or at the very latest next week, and I do have slides that we can kind of go through as it relates to the site, but I did want to make one comment back on the issue of wet shelter. So, it is actually quite a nuanced barrier in that, for instance, what I think folks might even consider somewhat high barrier salvation army programs. There are plenty of folks with substance use disorder that are using that program. They hand over their paraphernalia and whatever else they might be bringing and it goes into an amnesty box. So, there is a distinction between using on site and being in a position of having a substance use disorder. And so I think the distinction being, are we allowing substance use on site, on the premises, or are we focused on harm reduction and ensuring that behavioral norms are being adhered to? There are plenty of people in our community that have substance use disorder that can adhere to those rules. All right, so, oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I did have another question. So, when you say urgently develop and approve a small scale pilot program, your thought is that you would come back at our next meeting with a proposal for both a site and operator for that, is that correct? So, I think for the purposes of next week coming back and having a conversation on site selection, we'll know more about operator capacity and where that fits in hopefully by next week, but I wouldn't necessarily say that for sure. So, now is the time for us to take action. And we have a number of recommendations that were in our report, some of which were agendized as priority to consider and by three council members. So, we have a chance to take action on that this evening, as well as other input from the staff and other ideas that have been brought forward. I'll just say how grateful I was to see your process, analysis and literature and proposal to look at a long-term strategy. And being on a council for now two years, it's music to my ears to be quite honest with you because I feel it's so critical that we continue to think about a project plan that addresses absolutely the immediate needs, some of the interim needs, as well as some of the long-term strategies. And I know they're out there, but to really talk about what that means for Santa Cruz, especially from the evaluation type policy that or the criteria that you proposed. I will just sort of affirm that having heard some of the conditions that are existing at our current encampment, I have concerns about the health and human safety. I know there was a recent fire there. There's been a number of, I believe, some deaths and some ODs and some public health considerations that have been brought to my attention from our police department and our fire department that is very, very concerning. And I also recognize that we have a lot to do to get to the place where I know we want to be as a community in terms of our community process and outreach and ultimately to meet the needs of our various subpopulations. I was reminded recently in education that we have over 3,000 students and children and families living in our county who are experiencing homelessness. So we have a huge issue that has many, many subpopulations from transition age youth, children, adults, struggling in many different ways. And those that are on the brink of homelessness that require some prevention. So I do affirm my commitment to a holistic approach and I think that this staff analysis that is inclusive of that helps get us there. It's starting with some data and feasibility. So in an interest of trying to continue to move forward, I'm hopeful that we can start to move in the direction of making some decisions one way or another. I will acknowledge Vice Mayor Cummings because he mentioned he has a motion he'd like to submit and then we'll go ahead and see if others want to see it. So I'm prepared to make the following motion that is aligned with the staff recommendations that we see before us with a few minor shifts. And so, and I can pass this over to Bonnie. So in case she doesn't want to. So they can help. Can we put it up on the, do you have a viewer screen? Oh, you have multiple. Oh, great. Good. You want to put it up so other, the audience can see it. That was weird. So many of these points fit within the staff recommendations that was just presented above a couple of the points that were in those staff recommendations weren't included. So I'm just going to add those in as well. But update and reaffirm the council adopted City County Joint Action Plan by opening a 60 bed non-profit managed encampment at 1220 River Street on or before April 17th, 2019. Open a small scale, no more than 40 bed, six months pilot transitional encampment, and or safe sleeping and storage site on or before April 17th, 2019. Closing the gateway encampment to coincide with the opening of 1220 River Street program and pilot transitional encampment or safe sleeping and storage site. So just having the closure be contingent upon those two sites being open. Provide a minimum of one week notice to gateway encampment sleepers and day users as to closure date. Move to direct staff to return to council on or before April 9th, 2019 with a siting and operator recommendations for the pilot program. Move to implement the project scope of the transitional encampment charter per the suggested timeline incorporating safe parking to ensure a deliberate and inclusive community process. Move to table discussion on transitional encampment and safe parking ordinance amendments until that subject is contemplated in the project charter scope. Move staff to identify one city parking lot for the utilization of the association of faith community safe parking program to host up to five vehicles per night return to city council on March 26th, 2019 for approval. Include new research and project charter including conducting a shelter feasibility evaluation and unsanctioned encampment management plan and finally adopt the revised shelter crisis declaration. I'll second that. So we have a motion by vice mayor coming second by councilor Matthews. And I think if we could also add expand search for county locations, both public and private. Okay, council member Glover, council member Myers, council member Hal. Thank you. Why I'm ambivalent about the April 17th deadline. I'm looking for used vice mayor Cummings if you could clarify. Is there a reason only a one week notice to the gateway encampment sleepers and all day users of the closure date? That's minimum. Minimum, but I mean, is there a reason why that's so short of a minimum of one week? Why not a minimum of two weeks or a minimum of a month? I know that there was concern actually with the previous date that was set and given the fact that there may be constraints around us being able to open both of those sites by that date. There was some sentiments expressed that we don't want to post a date, for example, tomorrow of April 17th and then get close to that date and have to post another date and to continually be posting different dates. And so I said at a minimum of a week so that they would have at least seven days to be able to decide where they're gonna go and begin to pack up their encampments. I'm completely flexible with adding more time to that if necessary. I was wondering the logic around it, but thank you for that. And then the other thing was a question about the process if we table the discussion on transitional encampment and safe parking program ordinances until it fits within the charter scope, what's the timeline associated with that? I know as you said it was towards the end, but what does that look like and then how will that impact our ability to open up additional sites or to partner with nonprofits that want to move on establishing one of these programs at their facilities? Yeah, so I think I'm gonna have to have a little bit more of a comprehensive conversation with the planning director on this, but we have looked into how to move forward with the pilot and there is a process for which we can add some language to the shelter declaration to provide additional flexibility as to pilot programs and Lee can enhance this as well. So that process would be available for additional sites should we want to move forward ahead of when the ordinances are being considered. Thank you. Pass that out. And if I can add one thing to your point, Council Member Glover about what about other opportunities? Just we have other shelter plans like in the hopper so to speak. So the heap in cash, we should be getting those results like next week. And part of that is getting that next 100 bed or plus facility. So I think that we'll be able to come back to you and actually per the joint action plan, the initial one you adopted on February 12th, I believe we're supposed to come back to you in April to give you an update about whether or not we can meet that July one deadline. Because if you recall the additional shelter capacity that was added that you reference, Susie goes through June 30th. So the VFW does not close on April 15th. The Salvation Army does not close on April 15th as it normally would. It's going to go all the way to June. Now what's the plan as of July one? So we're going to be coming back to you without larger scale and that's more of a county wide look at least a North County look at what's going on. So that's also concurrent track. And just one last question. If you don't mind me. Thank you. I don't know if you have the information fire chief. Hey, Duke. And I'm always afraid I'm going to miss belly, miss, miss, pronounce your name. Hi, Duke. There we go. Can you confirm that the deaths in the camp were caused by overdoses? Or it's my understanding from speaking with camp residents in the council, they had to do with exposure to the weather and age and ailments. So to my knowledge, there's been four deaths since the camp has opened up. One of them was definitively a overdose. Three of them, we won't have the toxicology reports back for two to three months and that's through the county coroner. They did not appear outright to be an overdose, but there could have been concurrent drug use. And some of the subjects did have medical histories outside of a substance use, whether or not they were with exposure or because it was a secondary infection. We won't know that for a couple of months. So I can say that one for sure, there have been overdoses at the camp with the distribution of Narcan to the camp population. We're not getting activated like we would for some other places that did not have access to Narcan. One of the challenges with Narcan is the half-life of Narcan is much shorter than the half-life of an opiate. So you may have a short-term solution to that problem, but depending on what type of opiate you're using, whether it's heroin or fentanyl, that Narcan can wear off and then the person goes into respiratory rest again later on. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And then I can't remember where I, I think I can't remember. I think I can't remember where I was, I think I can't remember where I was. I think I can't remember. I think I can't remember. I think I can't remember. I think I can't remember. I think I can't remember about the council member Myers. Just another numbers related, rationale for numbers related question for the maker of the motion with respect to the no more than 40 bed pilot. So the ordinances as drafted say up to 50 beds. And so I'm just wondering why 40 was used rather than 50. And then also with respect to the safe parking program, oh, but making a city parking lot available, the rationale for five, why not, you know, maybe seven or 10, a higher number if they could be accommodated. Just wondering what happened. So this is fitting within the safe parking program that's been established and the funding through with the county. And so that's why this rationale has been used for this small number. And with the no more than 40 beds, I'd be happy to increase that if somebody would want to make a friendly amendment to that. Okay, were you done? I would make the friendly amendment for consistency safe stick with 50 bed for the pilot. And then I just in response to the preference for smaller number of vehicles and fitting with the program, that's for onsite at churches. But if we're talking, I guess I'm wondering because we're talking about offering a city parking lot, which may have greater capacity if the program is willing to operate with a greater number than I'd just like to know that. It's actually less about site and more about operational kind of standards in terms of the amount of staff that they have available to monitor the sites and the kind of the ability to get around to all the different sites and actually interact with the people that are in the RVs and vehicles. So in trying to keep it small scale is really shifting that responsibility to the churches. And I think that in consideration of the city and the county property, it's adding an additional layer of staffing requirement that they would have to do. I just wanted to know that there was a rationale for that. Council member. Thank you. Suzy, I know we had issues with the 1220 when it was up and running. Do you have a sense of how it might run this time? I mean, people said it was too expensive or it was difficult for people to go in and out a lot of times because there'd be a shuttle. There was a lot of criticism from the folks who stayed there. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. There's certain people who will go there and be I think relatively safe and secure. How's it gonna be? How do you envision it being run any differently than last time? I think it'll be run in a very similar way. And I think that while there are challenges at the beginning of the program, that is true for any program that you initiate in terms of as you're establishing a community and building community, that you'll run into issues with folks who may or may not agree with the behavioral norms that you're expecting. I think towards the middle, towards the end of the program, there was in large part community acceptance and appreciation for the program model and so I think we also have a better understanding with our community of folks experiencing homelessness as to what that program would look like and there will be less kind of misunderstanding as to how people can fit in. So I expect that there will be a high level of utilization and there will be people that don't fit into the program. What I will remark on is that while we're having some challenges filling the beds at the Laurel Street program, the VFW has been consistently full through the winter shelter season, which is pretty different than we've had seen in previous years. So really, previous years you'll see the population or the capacity kind of ebb and flow based on weather. So really cold, really rainy days, you'll see it at full capacity. Otherwise people start flooding out into the community. We have not seen that this year by virtue of changing it to a reservation system, doing the shuttle service. And so if that model is translated to a model where you actually have an individual tent, I think that will be attractive to a whole nother demographic of folks who might not necessarily wanna access the typical shelters. Thank you. The count in the current Ross Gateway camp, how has that been done? I've done it, my own cursory ones and I've come up with more than 100. So I'm just wondering how y'all did that. Yeah, it's a very, very challenging subject trying to figure out how many people are sleeping there versus how many people are utilizing that space during the day as well. And so most recent conversations have really moved towards having the community, the camp council really helping us to determine who there is sleeping and who of those folks that are sleeping are interested in engaging with the city and the council on shelter alternatives. So this week we are gonna be presenting a survey and the camp council has offered to help us engage. We really need that help in kind of developing a more cooperative process. So in addition to that, what Chief Hayduk talked about was actually getting that site survey done so we can ensure that we are engaging with people in each individual tent. There are tents that are being used for storage. I can personally attest to that. So it is very challenging. I think every day is a different situation. I've been out there on warm and clear days where there are hundreds of people there. And I've been there on rainy and cold days where everybody's in their tent and it's impossible to know how many people are there. So it's gonna take some additional time but I do think what we also are hearing from the camp council and the residents is there is a significant difference in the number of people sleeping there versus the people that stay during the day. Okay, and thank you. The moving to the table of the discussion, what's the timeline on that? The timeline that the project charter scope, the project charter people are gonna get back to the council and because I don't support that on the Facebook right here. Yeah, so I don't have the project charter in front of me and Lee can maybe contemplate that a little bit further but as it stands, I think that they're really the intentionality was to do a significant amount of engagement with stakeholders across the community first. Go ahead. The project charter anticipated coming back to the council in the August timeframe. I will say for the amount of outreach that is involved with that as well as the consultation with, for example, the Parks and Recreation Commission and or the Planning Commission and others, that is a very aggressive timeline. Usually something of this sort we would take an extended amount of time. We have some of the drafts that Tony put together and we can use those as a starting point but really we want to engage the community and figure out what is right for us and how can we make this ordinance fit our situation? When is the Laurel Street, excuse me, and the BFW closing? So they have been funded through June 30th. And we're talking August here and so what's gonna be that interim and if we're sort of muzzling another transitional encampment, how are we gonna compensate? So as Tina mentioned, the question of alternative shelter capacity is really wrapped up in this heaping cash RFP process. So we had intended on coming back to council in April as to the feasibility of opening an interim year round shelter for up to 100 beds. That proposal, which is part of the joint action plan is really intended to replace the beds at the BFW and the Laurel Street program. We'll also know more about that process could have attracted many other different operators, nonprofits that are interested in providing shelter in our community. We also propose so we do not know what the outcome of that process is as of yet. Hopefully we'll know pretty soon. Once we have that information, then we can do a gap analysis and much like you're talking about see if there's additional things that we need to explore but really the intentionality is to go from kind of what we have right now on an emergency basis to this interim year round shelter. And then I also wanted to mention in addition to what Lee was talking about for us to collect six months of pilot program data actually gets us out to October. So I do think in addition to concerns about the urgency of how quickly we can turn something around with regard to engagement, we also wanna make sure that we're looking at data from this pilot and really capitalizing on the fact that we are taking the time to engage not only with our community of homeless individuals but with our neighborhoods as well and thinking about outcomes from the client perspective and the neighborhood perspective. So that would actually push us out to October and so it's just something to consider. I just have a brief comment. I feel that with the transitional encampments language it's been often referred to as one of many options I struggle with trying to understand how that is the presumed policy that we're gonna pursue if that would just be one of other options. Do you know what I mean? I think, because what I heard from sort of the other part of the presentation in terms of the process is really understanding that scope, what's available, what's possible, getting community readiness, understanding sort of what would work well and where and how and the data to support and evaluate, et cetera. So it's hard for me to reconcile if we're presuming the solution before we're actually going through the process. And you're talking about the charter there. I'm talking about the transitional encampment which includes the charter as the process. Yeah, so with regard to the pilot transitional encampment or safe sleeping and storage program and the outreach that we are conducting at the encampment, there is a strong affinity to move into a structured encampment program from folks that we're hearing. I think where we have challenges with our continuum of care with regard to sheltering is, for lack of a better word, really the barriers that we people experience with even indoor facilities, dormitory style facilities. And so what we're hearing is kind of these questions around, do we have access to a greater level of privacy? And also the community building, that's part of this kind of self-government model is something that I think would be very attractive to the gateway encampment residents. And then ultimately just diversifying our portfolio is gonna be critically important. And we just don't have that kind of program now. So it would also benefit our greater homeless population as well. I mean, I'll just briefly say, I think come July 1st, we'll have a whole bunch of need in terms of planning and strategy to go into place because a lot of our shelter space will go offline. So I am interested in going through a process to get a better understanding of what's feasible, what our needs are, how to meet those needs. Similar to as was described, that to me makes a really great sense. And I think we could adequately do that within the timeframe. I'm a little bit hesitant in terms of putting kind of the cart before the horse in this regard personally. Okay, Council Member Myers? I'm wondering, Council Member Cummings, if you, the motion includes a lot in it. So there's parts of it that I definitely would like to support, but other parts I'm wondering if we could potentially, would you be amenable to, specifically to the Shelter Crisis Declaration? Can we, can I make a substitute motion that we deal with that as a standalone? Or? I think we could divide the question. I think we should go through each of them. And okay, that's what we want. Okay. Are we at that stage where we're prepared to do that? Okay. Okay. Is that, okay, so we'll go through the motion. Can I ask a question? I didn't catch the second to last bullet on your motion. That's not up here. Can you restate that for staff's benefit and for the public's benefit? That was from the staff recommendation to include new research and projects harder, including conducting a shelter feasibility, evaluation and unsanctioned encampment management plan. Okay, thank you. Add a friendly amendment to the motion to include within that needs assessment the policy alternatives and short intermediate and long-term solutions. And then to add that discussion to the scope of the two by two committee for consideration, which is essentially outlined in much of the presentation. Okay. One more before we go through. Okay, first we'll go Councilor Matthews and then Councilor. And we did add also expand the search for county locations, both public and private. And that was friendly meant by Councilor Myers. Okay, I just want to make sure the intent I'm so I'm concerned. I keep looking at the sentence in Dr. Leff's letter that was sent to us on Friday last week. With regards to the camp closure and the opening tied to the opening of the 1220 River Street. And then there's sort of a category, basically an and which is including the other 40 beds. And I'm worried that we're going to get stuck in a timeline issue again. And the sentence is very clear. I want to emphasize that the encampment currently poses a significant public health risk to the individuals at the encampment. As well as the general community, and it should be permanently closed as soon as possible. So I worry with tying that closure to yet another facility that we still don't have a site for that we don't have an operator for. And we could be slipping yet another month further on before all of that. And what I'm hearing is that the Laurel Street program may have some room. So I'm just worried, I spent all last week talking to a lot of the merchants in that center. And a lot of people are way down on their revenues.  So there's real impact that's going on economically there. And I think it's very clear what the county health officer is advising us to do. So I'd like to see if we could maybe work on that and or and figure out a way to keep things moving, okay? Council Member Glover. Thank you. I would say that it's imperative that we keep the language and and emphasize it in fact. So that it is for sure not an and or but an and. So that we can not only make sure that we have the bed spaces for people to move into. But also, so we have spaces for them to move into because if we go and remove them from the camp or close the camp without having adequate amounts of shelter, we talked during our closed session about what that could mean. So we want to make sure that we're up to date with respecting people's human rights. We want to also make sure that we are doing what's right and offering the space that's available for them. I don't think based off of the diligent work that Susie and the rest of the staff has been doing. That the idea that we'll be able to set up a small pilot transitional encampment or safe parking program by the 17th of April, especially with the timeline that was suggested is unfeasible. And it seems more responsible to do it that way. So I would encourage the maker of the motion to keep the current language or be even more specific and remove the or language to make sure that we have those extra 40 beds before we close the camp. People, I'm thinking we should just go, let's go through it and start getting to it. So why don't we just go ahead and piece by piece kind of get a pulse to the council of that. I just asked the friendly amendment from Brown to change to 50 was accepted. Okay, so starting with the first bullet, we have opening a 60 bed non-profit managing encampment at 1220 River Street on or before April 17th, 2019. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. I think, go ahead. I provide one line of clarification for council member Glover. The second bullet point, it's to open the transitional camp with 50 beds and or the slave sleeping in storage site. So the idea being that we would want to have those 50 beds open on or before April 17th and or in addition to those that transitional encampment, the slave sleeping in storage site. Okay, yeah, I mean, I can get behind that and I'm thinking for the clarification. I just want to make sure that the or doesn't get in the way of us being able to offer those now 50 beds. But either way, thank you for clarifying. It's all good. So- Can I ask a question? Susie, is there any reason why we can't have like an option? Because I'm just worried about the tabling the transitional encampment conversation. We have two pilots, is that an option for a second pilot if we get the 40, go with another pilot? I would just highly recommend trying to tackle this first pilot rather than trying to pile on another. We're going to put out more people than we have space for. I think that remains to be seen in terms of who is there and kind of accessing the space for sleeping. We'll know more about that. But generally speaking, based on the intensive outreach that we are doing out there, this 100 beds should be plenty in terms of capacity. In terms of folks that have readiness to move into shelter and wanting to kind of access the services that we have available. So I'll just say that I have concern with that date. I'm absolutely open to considering it for July 1st as we're starting to look at that holistic package. But for me it seems accelerated and there's a lot for us to do in terms of bridging expectations, community outcomes, and for me just personally to understand that. So I just don't feel comfortable with the accelerated timeline personally. So we'll be voting against, but I'm 1 to 7. For one point of clarification, because I'm thinking it's late and I might have misheard this. Bullet number two does not suggest we're opening both types of programs at the same time. It's either a transitional encampment or I'm not sure why there's an end. So I just want to make sure I understand the intentionality around that. Or a safe sleeping and storage site on or before April 17th. With the idea that when we go out to the community and ask about interest in either siding or operating this encampment, we may not yield results that we're looking for in terms of the structure that I think is required for our community. I have great faith that we have people that might be able to do this. The safe sleeping and storage site is I think there's more potential for us to do that very quickly because it really is offering a secure environment. And quite frankly, it's a much lower barrier program. So I think over this next week we really need to understand siding and operational capacity for transitional encampment, but also be poised to offer the safe sleeping site instead of if it comes to that. Okay, and so this is something that's going to come back to us next week, correct? Yes, it's your March 19th meeting, so if you're having a meeting, we figure there's urgency, we'll piggyback on. Okay, so I'll go ahead and support it to come back on the 19th with more information at this time. Can I ask, what is a safe sleeping and storage site? So I have a slide on that. It's where they go and they sleep and then they store the stuff during the day and they just go there to sleep. Yeah, so it's a dust to dawn program, I'm sorry, I'll just describe it. So it's a dust to dawn program which provides an opportunity for safe sleeping. It's typically there's programs in Eugene that actually have kind of a more permanent type of facility. What you see in other locations is you're utilizing space that's otherwise used during the day for other programming. So it actually opens up our options a little bit as well in terms of utilizing parking lots for instance. But it basically is a rest stop right to sleep program. You're providing onsite storage as well. One of the added benefits is that you provide storage potentially for folks that are not using the safe sleeping area, thinking about types of sites. It's basically the same sites as we are looking at for transitional encampments. So for the second bullet, we have opening the small scale no more than 50 beds, six month pilot and transitional encampment. Ani, could you put the motion back up? Why don't you ask if there's anything else people want to pull out and then we can. Okay, that's a good, okay, good call. So is there specific items and then we'll try to vote on all of that we agree on that people want to pull out at this time. I am going to pull at number three for conversation afterward. Closing the gateway encampment, okay. Adopting the revised shelter ordinance, crisis separation, sorry. Okay, so we'll pull the adopting the shelter revised crisis ordinance. I would pull the to table, move to table discussion. Okay. And the remainder is the same as we see it presented essentially with a couple of the additions that were the friendly amendments. Okay, so we'll go ahead and vote in one motion. On returning on March 19th with recommendations or locations for a interim space, either a transitional encampment or safe sleeping or storage site to be potentially implemented by the 17th. So then we'll have that discussion then to provide a minimum of one week notice to gateway encampment sleepers and day users as to close your date, to move to direct the staff to return to council on or before April 9th with a citing and operator recommendations for the pilot program. To implement the project scope of the transitional encampment charter, per suggested timeline, incorporating safe parking to ensure deliberate and inclusive community process. And move to have the staff identify one city parking lot for the utilization of association of faith community's safe parking program to host up to five vehicles per night and return to council on March 26th for approval. And then incorporating the search for county lots, the motion language around establishing a more holistic needs assessment, policy alternatives in short, medium, and long term solutions. And to add that to discussion for the two by two committee with the county. And I think that covers what we're about to talk about. Can I ask for one point of clarification? I thought I heard vice mayor Cummings also, but I don't see it up there. The adoption of the shelter crisis declaration. That was pulled. We're going to have further conversation about that. Okay, so that was pulled. We'll talk about that next. Is that seen clear? Yes, just on the county locations. I specifically said both public and private. Okay, okay, okay. Any further concern polling questions? Okay, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Good suggestion. Thank you, councilmember Matthews. Okay, so we'll go ahead and with the first bullet that was pulled was closing the gateway encampment to coincide with the opening of the 1220 River Street program and pilot transitional encampment or safe sleeping and storage site. Councilmember Meyers, I believe you wanted to address this one. Yeah, I would just again request that we tie it to the River Street opening on April 17th. I think it's too much to ask to not. I think I just think it's too much to try to try to get another facility open at the same time. If we can, that's great, but I just can't agree with the word and in there. I mean, both those things try to be achieved and by the by April 17th. I show your concern in that regard. Okay. Any other discussion? Just just going to say I support it. Okay. So all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. No. So that passes with councilmember Brown, Matthews, vice mayor Cummings, Crone, Gleaver in support and councilmember Meyers and myself against. Okay. And then the last was. Just two. There are two more. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, two more. So to table the discussion on transitional encampment and safe parking ordinance amendments until the subject is contemplated in the project charter scope. My sense is we're just not going to find the space and what we're going to have is many people from the gateway camp are going to be sleeping other places unless we have one other low barrier site that identified and we're seeking to get it up and running before the closure of even, you know, the vets, VFW or Laurel Street. I mean, if we can get another one up by then by June, I think it would, I just don't think we have enough space right now. So do you are you proposing that we move forward with adopting the ordinance? Are you proposing that you don't support this and will not vote? No, I don't support this particular ones. I'm just making the case that we shouldn't be tabling it unless we identify another space. As I said before, maybe two options rather than just one option. So the alternative would be to adopt it tonight. Essentially, I would like to see us with the intention of not just one of the safe sleeping or storage sites or transitional encampment. I'd like to see us get to another 50 beds. Council Member Brown, sorry, we'll go over the line. We'll start with you, Council Member Brown. So while I agree with Council Member Crohn's sense of the need and the desire to get some of these pilots or transitional encampments, whatever we want to call it, up and running more quickly to accommodate those who may be displaced, who will be displaced, ultimately. I also know that we've reiterated and reiterated that all of this is contingent on finding sites and operators. And so if adopting an ordinance tonight or moving the ordinance tonight and coming back for second reading, I assume it wouldn't happen as an emergency ordinance, we're, if not doing that, I'm trying to make sure that I say this correctly. If doing that would get us that additional encampment, that additional pilot, then I would be all for doing it. But I don't think just simply saying that we're going to, because we have the ordinance, we're going to make it so, is reflects reality. We just, we don't have operators, we don't have sites. And what I am, if I could clarify what I think I heard y'all say is should an additional pilot be possible, that could happen without an ordinance in place. So we're not precluding an additional pilot, should it be doable? Yeah, no, that's absolutely correct. Even though we're tabling the discussion until August, we could still be here. Yeah, you don't, you don't need the ordinances to explore additional shelter options from. Explore or actually implement? Implement, explore and implement. Okay, so given that information, you're fine with it. Okay, okay, so do you want to vote on that one? Sorry, okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. And then I think the last one is the conversation around the Shelter Crisis Declaration or expansion of existing shelter crisis language. So I just, I won't be able to support the motion. I received a lot of, a lot of correspondence on this and some of the, the language has been heavily revised and I understand the intent about it. I've talked with staff about it. But it's, it's a document that's causing a lot of concern in the, in the community, especially around things that people think of as fairly standard process, which is CEQA and the Coastal Act. So I'd like to just postpone, if we can, I'd like to make an alternative motion to bring that back to us on March 9th with some proposed revisions in an attempt to get the community to understand the purpose of the resolution. It's probably the one thing that I got the most comments on. It's a fairly, and as we've said, we have an existing resolution in place. As far as I understand from talking to staff, our existing resolution will allow us to do all of these things. It sounds like, and I think, I think I would, yeah. So I would make an alternative motion that we postpone or refer this to our March 9th meeting and consider further revisions to the document. Okay. Let's move clarification on that date. March 19th, March 19th, it's midnight. So we have an alternative motion to postpone the conversation around it. I'll second that to feel like there's more that I need to understand about that. And again, feel that we'd be happy to revisit it, but it's a little bit fast in regards to bringing the community along, understanding the different components and some of the unintended or just sort of consequences either way with it. That I'd like to know more about. Happy to discuss it more on March 19th if that's the will of the council, if not, I'll say I did second the motion. I feel basically comfortable with this, but I'm also comfortable putting it off for one week because I think it's important that particularly the two of you have the chance to get your questions answered and talk to community. I also have talked with staff. I understand the intention, but I think a week of clarity is probably a good move. So, any further comments? It's covered by Councilman Matthews. Okay, so we'll vote to accept the substitute motion. That would be correct. Okay. And then vote on the substitute motion. And then we'll vote on the substitute motion if it's accepted. No, I'm not. You could just. Okay. All those in favor of the substitute motion to revisit this with an edited version on March 19th, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Okay, so that passes with Councilmember Brown, Matthews, Vice Mayor Cummings, Councilmember Myers and myself in support, Councilmember Glover and Councilmember Crone voting against. Is that it? No. We got one more. No. Councilmember Matthews. Not on this immediate motion, but we had quite a few comments from the residents in the river neighborhood, upper ocean price, Falker, Tannery, about some requests they made very short term, but they felt very strongly to make the pathway more usable and to protect the impact on the neighbors. So, I wanted to put forth the, I don't know if it's a motion, I asked about the feasibility of carrying out those because they are seriously impacted and maybe it's just putting it off for a month, but I don't know who I'd ask about. Maybe, Tony, is that you? I take their circumstances and their requests seriously. Yeah, I think is the primary concern just number of people on the path and just path being blocked or what is the main concern? Well, one was, as I understand it, pulling back the location of the porta-potties and the sanitation and then screening off the path really the neighbors submitted some diagrams of how it might be achieved. It was the movement of the boundary fence. Yeah, the offering the boundary fence just to protect that area. Yeah, yeah, we can coordinate with the team, public safety, the police department as well and yeah, look for some potential solutions this week. Okay, then I will also move that we direct staff departments as necessary to implement some very short term improvements to protect the, to separate the encampment from the river walk and protect the feeling of safety of public access along there. Thank you. I'll second that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. I just wanted to add that there'll be some measures that we'll have to take in between now and the April 17th in addition to that just to be able to address the public safety concern just for your information. Like for example, the vector control implementation, the, I think working with the fire department to create space and some of those things. So they'll just have to be some measures that'll have to be taken just to make it address the issues that come up just for your information. These seem just logistical. Yes, yes, but I just want to make you aware of that. Did you have something to add? I just, I don't want to, I just want to, so council your expectations are aligned appropriately. So we're coming back to you Tuesday a week from today. We have to have our agenda packet out on Thursday then which means we have tomorrow to put all of this together. So we will try our best, certainly, but you might expect a little more detail actually coming. The staff presentation has been happening, but we will do our best to just, so you know what we're working with. Okay. I started coming and then I had a comment. But it is possible also to dribble stuff out to us.  Yes, it certainly can the day of, but what we do whenever you are afforded a piece of information, the community simultaneously is afforded that piece of information. So it just require a lot of updates to the packet in SIR, not insurmountable, but we will, we will try our best to get you as much as we can as soon as possible while maintaining that transparency with the public. Thank you. Yeah, I just had a quick question around whether there would be feasible, whether it would be feasible during this time when a number of these tents are going to be moved and more space is going to be created around them. For that to also be used as an opportunity to get some of the excess of trash that's been mentioned there to get that out as well. Yes. Yes. And that's what I was getting at to just improve overall conditions, sanitation conditions, emergency access. Some of these issues that the fire chief noted again to make it better for the individuals living there and for emergency personnel to get there. And again, to just make it safer sanitation and emergency. Yes. Yes. And I'll just add, I recognize that we have a number of issues impacting our community and this has dominated a lot of our staff time. I'd like to understand what we're not able to get to as a result and or if there is a need for the council to consider any type of consultant support or additional support to help maintain the work and move forward in a thoughtful and productive way that helps meet our needs, but also address the other many issues that the city has and needs that the city has for us to address as well. And so just something to consider to bring back to us ideally at a future time, given that we've now added another really urgent timeline to your workload. All right, so with that. And we just again thank our staff for just an amazing job. Yeah. On that note, we'll go ahead and adjourn. Thank you.