 Good evening. Welcome to the special meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to discuss redistricting. This is October 28th, 2021 at 6.30. Clerk, please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Here. Friend. Here. Tuner. Here. Herr Caput. Herr Caput is present. McPherson. Here. Thank you, you have a quorum. We have consideration of late additions to the agenda. We have no late additions or corrections to the agenda, Chair. Very good. I will now, we'll have a moment of silence and then pledge of allegiance. Pledge of allegiance to the Department of the United States of America, to the Republic for which it stands, unnamed, under God, to the Republic for which it stands. It's a time for public comment. Any person may address the board during the public comment period. Speakers must not exceed two minutes in length. And individuals may comment only on today's subject of the special meeting on redistricting. We have anybody who'd like to address us. Thank you. My name's Becky Steinbrenner. I'm from the Amptos Hills area. I have a question. Will the members of the public be given an opportunity later in this meeting for speaking on the item before us? Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah, there's any others who want to speak? Yeah, for the record, there are no members joining us via Zoom. And we can speak on this item tonight on redistricting later. We'll go to the item number five, the regular agenda, the special meeting of public hearing to consider maps and plans proposed by the advisory redistricting commission and members of the public except in file report on the 2021 redistricting process and provide additional direction as recommended by the County Administrative Officer. Thank you, Lisa Benson from the County Administrative Officer who's going to be presenting. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, board members. My name is Elisa Benson, assistant CAO and project lead for the County's 2021 redistricting effort for supervisorial districts based on 2020 census. In addition to myself, we have Rita Sanchez as well as Susan Perlman, Matt Price, Jenny Gomez, and I think our ARC 21 commissioners, O'Neill and Moser who are available virtually. And yes, our quick of elections is here as well. And Ruby Marquez who's been our County Council on this item. So they're also available for questions this evening. Next slide, please. Before we get into this evening's festivities, I just want to take a moment to review for the public the fundamentals of redistricting when we do this every 10 years. What is it? This is the process by which neighborhoods and communities are grouped together for purposes of elected representation. So this is a very important process. And then we try and get to substantial population equality across the districts. Why does this matter? Because in the past, redistricting has been used to exclude communities. So this is why full engagement of the public and transparent processes are essential as we do this work. I will say as a staff member, this is the first time I've done this work. And given that it comes every 10 years, it's not something you get a lot of practice yet, but we've been exceptionally lucky to have Susan Perlman who has marshaled this effort for, I think, the last three efforts prior to this with the county. And she's been a great teacher for all of us. I also want to put out there, it's been a little bit complicated, as you would imagine by the COVID-19 global pandemic and how it impacted both the census process and that had consequences for this process as well. But in any case, this is around people's voices being heard. So we wanted to make sure it is as transparent and open and inviting to the public as possible. Thank you. Next slide. So tonight's objectives. First, I want to just share with the board and members of the public. This is the first of three public hearings that the board will be having. So this is not where we'll be taking any final action on a map. This is really the beginning of the board's consideration. I am with that. Am I going to give a quick review of the agenda? First, because we do this every, only every decade and since there was some considerable changes in state law, we're going to spend a little bit of time at the beginning of the agenda and going over redistricting requirements and processes under the Fair Maps Act or 8849. Then we'll talk about the recommendations put forward by your advisory redistricting commission. Then we will hear public testimony. And of course take any questions from the board. And then we'll be doing staff direction for the remainder of the public hearings. But I am going to spend a little bit of time talking about the process because it is different than what happened the last decade. Next slide, please. So as I've noted, there's been a number of changes in state law in 2018 and 19 with a bulk of those wrapped into the Fair Maps Act or 8849. So Lisa, I'm sorry, can I interrupt you? I'm getting a message that people are having a difficulty accessing the Zoom meeting. As a guest, it's telling them the host has another meeting in progress. Want me to pause? So yeah, we should pause and see if you could. Maybe we want to take a five minute break or... All supervisors are present. There were no late additions to the agenda. We've had our pledge in a moment of silence. Any person may address the board during this public comment period. Speakers must not exceed two minutes in length and individuals may speak only on today's item on the special, of this special meeting on redistricting. We will have now a presentation from the CAO's office, Lisa Benson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lisa Benson, Assistant CAO and Project Lead for our county redistricting effort this year. We also have our staff team available if there's questions as we move through tonight's presentation. Before we get into tonight's festivities, I want to take a moment to go through the fundamentals of redistricting for our viewing public. Again, so redistricting is about setting the boundaries for our electoral officials and representation. This happens every 10 years after the decennial census occurs. And what this is, is really how the selection of neighborhoods and communities are grouped together for purposes of elected representation. And it's, we base those districts with substantial equality across the district. So all the districts are of the same size. So now the audio is not coming at through? No. Supervisor Friend, can you hear us? Yes, we can hear you now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, I'll go back to redistricting and why does it matter? So this is a process we engage in every 10 years after the decennial census to determine the groupings of neighborhoods and communities for purposes of elected representation. And in doing so, we do that so those districts in terms of population size are substantially equal. This matters because redistricting is how we ensure that we have groups have their voice represented in the matters in front of their communities. And it's important that we have community engagement and involvement in identifying those redistricting boundaries as though we do have a history in this country where redistricting has been used to exclude certain communities. So it's incredibly important that we have full public engagement and our processes are transparent. So I just wanted to put that forward before we talk about tonight's meeting and how it fits into a process in front of us. Next slide, please. So a quick review of tonight's agenda and for this special meeting, which is the first of three meetings that will where the board will be considering changes in Supervisorio districts. And just to make it clear for the public, there's no final action tonight. This is the first of this series. Because we do this every decade and one while it's familiar, it is still different. And since the last time this happened in 2011, we've had changes in state law that affect the process. So we wanted to take some time this evening to walk through the process to explain how it's different from what's happened in the past and how that's informed the process we took to get here today. We'll also be then presenting the ARC 21 recommendations. There will be opportunity for that very important public testimony. And then it will come back to the board for questions and any directions to staff to inform the work at the next public hearings. But as I mentioned, there's been a number of changes in state law regarding redistricting, particularly in 2018 and 19 with the FairMaps AB 849, FairMaps app really informing our process. So I'm going to start at the bottom of this slide and work my way up. So AB 849 sets up extensive requirements around the record keeping for this process, which is why establishing both our website and then the way we are managing any documents from the public or that are created in this process that they will be there. And this is maintained for 10 years as it says here and in multiple languages. The other aspect is there's a considerable number of requirements around public outreach and communication to again, provide as much opportunity for the public as possible to participate in these processes. And then the final section around the public hearing process will spend a little bit of time on this. And there'll be another slide that goes into our schedule in particular, but we have to have at least four public hearings. In the NAB 849, we are able to count one of the public workshops as one of those hearings. So that's September 30th workshop we did counts as your first public hearing and it was noticed as such. So this is effectively our second public hearing. And then there's also some specific noticing requirements, particularly around the publishing of maps that we have to meet as we meet the requirements of the Fair Maps Act. So as I talk about the schedule, I'll point some of those out because they're a little bit different than our regular meetings. And really that most important one is that final maps have to be published with seven days notice. So we'll walk through that in the process, but those details make it so we have some specific actions we're recommending for you to, for us to take moving through this process. Next slide, please. I'm going to briefly go over the process that got us here tonight. And I should say I mentioned it earlier, but obviously the global pandemic has affected, it affected the census and it moving forward in 2020. And that timing of release of census data affected our process along the way. So really this, our redistricting experience can be broken into four different phases. The first was at the beginning of the year when the board made the decision to establish advisory redistricting commission. And so we first worked to build the county team and receive your nominations and then convene as we call them the ARC 21. And we started that in May. Then we moved on to access and outreach. So we launched our website, we started developing the online communities of interest tool and communities of interest is really the term we use for however our community wants to define itself. There's lots of different ways. It can be school districts, geographical. We all like birds. I mean, it's really a self-defined definition. And in your packet, there is the example, not examples the actual community of interest forms we received via the website. We also reach press releases, social media campaigns. And then we developed an infographic and English and Spanish to share with community partners to encourage people to participate either online or in our workshops. And then the third phase was really that involvement engagement. So that's when we actually did those hybrid public workshops in community to invite people to participate in these conversations. And the timing of those workshops are listed there. And now we're really in that fourth part of the process, the line drawing and mapping. And I should say, as I mentioned, one of the key inputs you need for this process is that census data. And unlike every other experience where that census data has been available in April, we did not receive that census data until late August. And it was a preliminary draft. And then the final approved official data wasn't provided until September 20th. So this whole process has been done in anticipation of the data. The communities of interest are the communities of interest, but that data really does drive the process. I'm gonna go to the next slide, please. So this is the public hearing schedule that the board approved. As I mentioned, the first public hearing, we've met that requirement through that September 30th workshop. This is the second public hearing where you're actually receiving the AHRQ recommendations as well as testimony from the public on both those recommendations and any other ideas that the public would want the board to consider in making decisions regarding changes to the district maps. The third, or I'm just gonna say our second public hearing for purposes of the board is going to be on November 9th. It's a regularly scheduled board meeting and we're hoping to have that be at a time certain at 1045, again, making it very clear when folks can participate. In that, this is where one of the nuances comes up. In that, in the November 9th public hearing, we've asked that, and you'll see these in the recommended actions, that we accept maps from the public up until November 2nd. The reason for that is to meet the noticing requirements for the 9th. And similarly, after that point, if there are subsequent changes, it could move the entire meeting schedule. We'll continue to take comments. The question is if someone's submitting specific maps that they want you to consider. And then this is what would allow the schedule then, then have you take final action on the 16th and we'll be well in advance of the requirement to be completed by December 15th, or I'm sorry, yeah, December 15th. This schedule provides additional time if you need it beyond this hearing schedule, but there are some complications related to SB 594 and the candidate filing period if we push much further into November. So we think this is gonna provide you adequate time to evaluate the recommendations of the ARC and public testimony and make those final decisions on the 16th. I'd be happy to pause for any questions at this point around this different piece of the process. Any questions from the board? Okay, we'll keep going. Next slide please. So we're gonna move from that process overview to the work of the commission. So on the screen is our advisory registering commission members and the R5 working members met seven times in terms of the ARC meetings themselves as well as attended all of the public workshops. So we had a very great committed a group of folks and we really wanna appreciate and offer our gratitude for their time, their commitment and the experience they brought to this process. Next slide please. Just for the public, what do ARC 21 commissioners do? Well, first they really are the eyes and the ears of the supervisors. They participated both in those formal engagement workshops to listen to the public, but they also had their own community conversations to understand how people considered and defined to their communities of interest. They spent a quite a bit of time learning about federal and state related election law and those criteria that inform making these changes. And as I mentioned, they started looking at the data the first passive data in late August to understand what was the math underneath the redistricting effort. Next slide please. One is been a quick minute providing an overview of the legal requirements. As we mentioned, there's both federal and state. I'm happy to take questions on this, but really so the first and foremost is that effort to get towards equal, substantially equal population. We'll talk a little bit more about that when we see the data. And of course compliance with our federal Voter Rights Act, Voting Rights Act. In terms of the state requirements, and this is again to the extent practicable, there are five ranked criteria, criteria, excuse me, that question of geographical contiguity, you want sort of things need to connect, you can't skip over the use of identifiable boundaries. So frequently that's gonna be natural artificial streets, natural features, so people have a sense of place. Geographical compactness, you want sort of the most normal looking lines and not drawn sort of long stretches to reach one pocket or another, but so geographical compactness. And then I'm sorry and identifiable boundaries we spoke about most importantly, political parties, that lines can't be drawn to favor or discriminate against any political party incumbent or candidate. So that is sort of an underlying requirement both in federal and state law. Next slide please. So before you hear are the actual, the data coming out of the census, I wanna point out there is one small typo in district four on the over under, it should be 0.72%, not 0.072%. So what's important about this is the over under is really a calculation based on that target population of 54,270 as the population within each of the districts. And then you'll see in the total population from the census, we see what that count was based on the 2020 census. And you see what we could label the over and under. And then the next column shows that in terms of a percentage. So with all of our districts, we are well below 5% sort of that margin of error or what shall I say, the margin for getting to substantially equal. So in terms of legally meeting substantially equal, these values meet that test. However, we still need these districts to be consistent with what people identify as communities of interest today. And you still wanna advance those ranked criteria we just walked through. So to the extent that there are communities of interest or other criteria, compactness that can be advanced and get closer to substantially equal, that's what we asked our commissioners to consider. We're in good shape here in terms of the numbers, but that wasn't enough. We needed to look at, is there any changes that needed to be made to reflect communities of interest or any of those other criteria? So with that, I wanna pause and see if there's any questions about this component, this base input to the redistricting effort. Okay, we'll keep going. We're gonna move on to the ARC 21 recommendations. So we'll get to, and as you know, in your agenda packet, there are two recommendations from the ARC 21. There were a number of other proposals from commissioners that were discussed, as well as a map from the public. And those are in your packet and included as attachments. However, none of those were recommended by the ARC for the board's consideration. So they are available in your packet and for the public, but we're not gonna be speaking about those tonight unless there's some questions. So the first proposal, which we've just labeled proposal A, is a proposal that would move population from district three east of the harbor into district one. And it's about 613 people. So what that would do effectively is it improves getting towards substantially equal by reducing the over for district three. And it slightly increases from being under in district one to being just over. But input from community around having all of Live Oak and that neighborhood in particular in one district as right now it was split into two. Any questions about that proposal? That's people, not voters. That is people. People. Next proposal. The second proposal, and we're just calling proposal B is a move between districts two and district four. This is the Apple Hill community within Watsonville and it would move residents of Silver Lake and Green Minow drives from district two to district four. And it's about 491 people. Similarly, this just gets us a little closer to substantially equal by reducing district two from being slightly over to being slightly under and then reducing the amount, I'm sorry, yes, reducing the amount over from district four from 0.72% to 0.18%. So again, just a little bit of changes around the edges to get closer to substantially equal. So both of these proposals advance that criteria around substantially equal. Any questions about proposal B? Great. So this is just basically a larger map that does that comparison. You can see there is some, so let me see if I can get a pointer on here. You can see there's a small red area. The first, thank you. Here, thank you. And then the other one you'll see at the other edge, sort of. So these are small edges around the districts but they do work towards that substantially equal. And the table here also indicates that that all the districts with the exception of district five get a little bit tighter around zero with these proposals. So with that, we can take the next slide. And this is the time for additional questions of staff or our ARC 21 commissioners and then we would move on to public comment. I think I'll ask for any of their board members have any questions? And then from that, I'm kind of none for me. Anybody that's virtual would like to ask a question? Hi, Supervisor. This is Ryan Coonerty. I overall, I appreciate the direction of the working group and moving that district into the making live oak continuous. I do have some small concerns by the district three being several thousand people over. I think it's likely that there was at least a small undercount of the census at UCSC because of COVID. If there's interest, you know, adjusting the lines so as to make the districts even, I'd be supportive of that. If there's not, you know, we're within, well within the legal limits to leave it. And so I can stick with that. Any other questions from board members, Supervisor Friend or Caput? Yeah, thank you. Can we go back to the slide? It showed Apple Hill, that's correct. But I saw something that said silver leaf. There was a slide right before we came to this point. Okay, the one right before this. That's a silver leaf there. It might be a lag. Go ahead, you go to proposal B. Is that the question you had? There we go. Let me look. Includes silver leaf and green meadow drives. I already have those, right? I think it just moves the remainder of it into district. All right, the remainder. Yes. That's fine. Okay, thank you. It just threw me off a little bit. Any other questions? Is it just for the time for the public? Yeah, if there's no questions of staff or of commission, absolutely time for a public comment. Staff, are there any public comments? Thank you, Becky Steinbrenner from the Aptos Hills. I would like some explanation about why the ARC-21 did not accept any of the proposed the map that Mr. Coffes submitted. I thought was very good. And maybe it didn't address the population or would not easily address the population. I would like some explanation. And I do know that it was touched on just very briefly in the document, but why wasn't that pursued? And I saw in the public correspondence, many people asked for the city of Scotts Valley to be united under the same supervisor. And I have spoken with some people that live in Scotts Valley. And apparently that was an issue that was in Supervisor Koenig's campaign. So I think it really needs to be addressed. And I don't see it being addressed here. I also, having run for second district supervisor, know that in Capitola, it is a mess. Trying to figure out which streets, which areas are which supervisor. And sometimes the people who live there don't even know. So I think the boundaries of the city of Capitola really need to also be addressed as a community of interest. And I really felt that Mr. Coffes' map did that in a very good way and addressed the real disparity between rural dwellers in the population centers, not only as a voice because there are a lot more voters there than there are in the rural areas, but also the funding for our roads and measure D, money is divided among districts. And it gets, thank you, I see you're gonna allow me a little more time, thank you. And it gets very difficult because the rural roads get nothing. And yet they're critical for our rural residents for fire evacuation, for public safety response. And the rural people are really not getting fair representation. I thought Mr. Coffes' map did a really good job of trying to address that. So I hope that those things can be addressed and a little more discussion around the recommendations that the public made and why they're not being taken. Thank you very much. I assume I wasn't at those hearings that they add, but I do believe my understanding is that those presentations were fully discussed by the commission, but that wasn't the recommendation. I don't know the reasons for or against that. I think it was probably population numbers, but. I think that I'm happy to provide a little bit of insight into the commission's discussion of the particular map that the speaker is speaking, is addressing. It was a considerable redrawing of the boundaries and something so significant in change and not necessarily in alignment with those ranked criteria that these changes must be aligned with that they did not feel comfortable pushing that forward. And further that it was such a significant redrawing of the boundaries, it would require extensive community outreach and engagement to see if there was any interest or if people felt that that was disruptive to the communities of interest that the current boundaries represent. So it was, I don't want to say a wholesale redrawing of the Supervisorial districts, but a dramatic change in terms of how representation worked. In particular, one of the elements that was a regular discussion with the arc was the decision, I think it was two. I might get this wrong, I'm gonna have to ask Susan this. Two redistricting processes ago where in this community there was a decision to have each city represented by two supervisors. So the idea was that everyone would have more than one supervisor reflecting a city interest as well. And that map in particular shifted that practice of this community away. So that was why they didn't feel like it was appropriate to recommend it for consideration. So it was that two supervisors representing a city would be of value to that in essence? Yes, I mean, so that's been our practice. The last two, now this would be the third redistricting effort where that's the idea that having more supervisors represent a city as well as unincorporated areas provides that city better opportunity, the residents of that city better opportunity for representation in county affairs. Is there something to it too that you're not changing, people, the statement was made, they don't know which district they're in or so forth. But the other point that I heard third hand was that if we don't need to change what people are used to for 10 years, let's don't change it. I mean, that's a general statement. Well, I think you guys are going to get me putting my CREMO hat on, there's not just don't change something because it's not broken. I think the more important question in this analysis is around what does it do to communities of interest? So I mean, don't just changing something without understanding that it might disrupt the current representation of communities of interest that we didn't want to engage in those kinds of activities. Are there any other questions here in the public? Any other, anybody on the phone? There are no members of the public on the same that would like to question. You want to continue now? I would be happy to continue. So where we are, if we could go back to the PowerPoint, where we are at this point is to recommendations. And so I'm just going to walk through the recommendations. Since there is a long list here, there's our regular recommendation of accepting and filing the staff report, then that really initiating this process of the public hearing and considering the proposals that are in front of you. This is the first evening of that consideration. There is considerable testimony in your packet, those community of interest forms and other public testimony that those are formally part of your record for considering boundary changes. It's the opening of the public hearing and receiving testimony tonight. Well, I'm going to circle back to the providing direction in a moment, but it's also, we're going to be continuing the public hearing until November 9th. And then we'll be holding that final public hearing on the 16th. I just wanted to again circle back to that. Second from the bottom recommendation that this is also saying that to receive maps that we need to receive those by November 2nd, so we can meet the notice and requirements for the subsequent public hearing. So that direction is in there as well. So those are the formal ones. Excuse me. And as that public hearing November 9th, is that a specific time of 1045? Yes, sir. Both we are recommending that we have both. This is a time certain item on the 9th regular, the November 9th regular meeting and the regular meeting on November 16th. So the other thing that is here is if there's any other adjustments or ideas you would like us to prepare for you for consideration on the 9th, we would appreciate hearing them now. So we have time for that. Any questions, any board members? Yes, thank you, Chair. Is there a specific tool that members of the public should use to submit a proposed map? Sure, absolutely. And these are interest forms, but there's also some opportunities to use the redistricting software if they want to submit, use that software and submit a map. And those should go through to our redistricting email. Actually, maybe Rita, do you want to talk about that a little bit? How to submit any maps or? Well, we are required and able to take maps in any format. It doesn't have to be the online mapping tool. It can be anything written on a piece of paper. So we will accept them if people email them to believe, and I hope I don't get this wrong, redistricting2021atSanacruzCounty.us, bring them in in person to the fifth floor of the county building or mail them in to us. But online, we do have a free mapping tool that's available on our redistricting website under the mapping and data tab. And on that page is information on GIS staff, which will be able to help with kind of going through the mapping software to be able to submit maps. I see the link now, it's fantastic. Supervisor Friend, any questions? Yeah, I don't really have any questions. Let's make a couple of brief comments. First, I just wanted to express my appreciation, in particular to the GIS team. They did a lot of work during this entire process. There were a lot of iterations of the mapping going back and forth between the advisory committee. And so I just wanted to really appreciate the work of county staff and in particular the GIS team on this. I also wanted to acknowledge that there really aren't very large changes that are being proposed right now. And I think that that is appropriate. I think that the district two change and the Apple Hill area to district four makes a lot of sense from community of interest standpoint. But I think that we should also put a marker out there that a bit to what Supervisor Coonerty noted, there clearly was an undercount in this previous census due to COVID. And in particular, I think that undercount was most acute in the South County, in particular in Watsonville. So I would anticipate with UCSC growth occurring, I would anticipate with a correct count at the next census in Watsonville that a future board is gonna be looking at a need to really consider a different look at the maps than our board is looking at. We fell within a very, within a population, the current districts fall within the current, the population requirements. So we don't really need to change anything. And I think that there's a value in not having a wholesale change. But I also think that realistically the numbers aren't accurate. And I think this is an issue that's gonna be occurring across the country. And I think in particular, the second and fourth districts are gonna be looking a bit different at the next census than they do currently. And I think the third and fifth districts are gonna be looking a bit different because of the UCSC growth. And it's just something that our communities are gonna need to prepare for moving forward. Good points. Supervisor Coonerty, comments? Yeah, I wanna appreciate all the work. I'm not, right now I'm not gonna move with additional direction, but I think before the next meeting, I may have a discussion with my colleague. I'm not interested in, I know how hard it is for my colleagues to represent the unincorporated areas and be a full service government. So I'm not interested in moving any sort of unincorporated residents from my district into other districts, but perhaps there's a way to make these numbers more even and prepare for the changes that will be significant, I think coming forward for the next census. Thank you. Supervisor Caput. Yeah, thank you very much. I wanna thank the redistricting commission also. I guess the last thing we needed was to have, if we had to do this ourselves, it would, with everything else going on, it would have been overwhelming, I think. So they've clarified it. If there was an undercount, the biggest area of an undercount was like I agree with Supervisor Friend. The biggest undercount would probably be in South County, because when you're counting population, you're counting undocumented or documented people. And then you have families, we call blended families, where some are here with papers and some are not. And it's very difficult to count also the DACA. Students that are actually enrolled in school, whether or not they're actually counted because they don't have documentation. So I guess considering COVID and everything else that was going on, I think the census people did the best job they could. And we have to deal with the numbers that they gave us. The only other question I had was, I said something about two of the public hearing meetings would be after 6 p.m., but I wasn't sure if it said for sure or it said or. That was right at the beginning of the meeting. If we're gonna do it at 10.45 a.m. or are we gonna still meet the legal requirements? It worked out when you heard it. I'm happy to answer that Supervisor Caput. I think it's only one meeting has to be in the evening. And actually technically we've had two meetings. We've had this meeting and then the first, because the workshop, the evening workshop on September 30th was officially our first public hearing on this. We've actually had, we've gone past that expectation. And the next two meetings would be at your regular meeting during the day at 10.45. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I too would like to thank the commission, First District Chair, O'Neill, Second District, Michael Watkins, who was the chair, Third District, Chris Reyes, Fourth District, Peter Radden, Fifth District, Jim Mosher. They put a lot of time into this, heard a lot of comments. Their service is very much appreciated. So with that, I would, Chair, I would just actually, yeah, one final comment. Yeah, I wanted to speak to the maps submitted by the public, which I think I remember the public commented on, which effectively makes the better half of the North County into one very large District Five and essentially two mostly rural districts. I'll just say that in my brief time on this board, I've come to appreciate the fact that pretty much all the districts include both urban and rural parts of the County. I think that that also actually creates opportunities. The fact that we all essentially represent both are urban and rural residents. If you banish, or I should say, if you create two all rural districts, you've essentially banished the rural residents to a minority on this board. It'd become very hard, I think, for them to ultimately pass issues that are in their interest. You know, rural, both are going to come from if the other three supervisors all represent entirely urban districts. So I know it's a bit counterintuitive to think that, you know, you want one representative who just represents a rural area, but in fact, I think the current situation actually leads to the best representation for both urban and rural residents. Yeah, did I have any other comments from the board members? Entertain a motion to continue this public hearing with the next board meeting on November 9th at 10.45. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Okay. Real quick question. Did we have a roll call at the beginning of this meeting? Did we have, was it an action roll call? Yes, we did. And then there were some sound difficulties, but everybody was present when we were called the order. So we're all present from the start. Yes. We were here from the beginning. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay. This hearing will be continued to November 9th at 10.45 a.m. in this board chambers. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.