77, I did partially address the mandate from the state we have to meet on court facilities in my comments and that is one of my complaints that the articles have not clearly covered the need other than a sideways reference to seismic problems and lack of space. I spent a good five minutes explaining the legislative history and the past investigations of trying to upgrade the existing building during the meeting. It is also a big deal that the options were mislabeled. It makes it appear that we had already agreed to the land swap. I try to correct or clarify R-G articles so that folks have a full picture. I understand that they need to sell papers and a possible conflict about siting options is more sexy than the boring details of why we are mandated to provide adequate facilities and the state's current offer to supply matching funds that is not a requirement of the state. It is also important that folks understand we are committed to carrying this project out publicly.