# Mayor's Task Force to End Homelessness - January 26, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 26, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6671 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6671?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-01-26 - **Last revised**: February 15, 2026 - **Length**: 11,734 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Mayor's Homeless Task Force met on January 11, 2026, at 3:30 PM in Council Chambers, located at 200 East Main. The meeting covered 6 agenda items, the majority of which were informational in nature, including committee reports from the Supportive Services and Prevention Services Committee, the Funding and Partnership Committee, the Peer Cities and Shelter Models Committee, and the Community Engagement Committee, as well as an update on a Homeless Shelter Tour. One vote was taken during the meeting, resulting in the approval of the meeting minutes. No public comments were heard during the session. ## Attendance The following individuals were recorded at the meeting held on January 26, 2026. **Present:** - Allen - TC - Jeff - Charlie Corn - James - David Shad - Jenny - Chuck Allinger - Jeannie Ramsey - Reverend McFarland - Council Member Beasley - Council Member Sheehan - Council Member Brown - Tiffany **Late:** - Todd **Absent:** None A total of 14 individuals were present at the meeting. No members were recorded as absent. Todd attended but arrived late. ## Votes and Decisions The following motion was considered and decided during the January 26, 2026 meeting: - **Approval of Meeting Minutes** [timestamp: 0:01]: A motion to approve the meeting minutes was made by Allen. The motion was decided by voice vote and passed. No roll call was conducted, so individual member votes are not recorded. ## Budget and Financial Actions One significant financial matter was discussed at the January 26, 2026 meeting involving a federal grant termination with major implications for local services. - **SAMHSA Grant Termination:** A $3,000,000 grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) was reported as terminated, directly impacting the City of Lexington and other agencies that relied on the funding. The termination affects Narcan distribution programs as well as other services supported by the grant. No resolution number was identified in connection with this item. No additional budget resolutions, appropriations, or financial actions were recorded for this meeting. ## Contested Items - **SAMHSA Grant Termination**: The sudden termination of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) grants emerged as a point of community opposition during the meeting. The termination resulted in a loss of $3 million in federal funding, with the impact falling on services provided to the homeless population. No additional details regarding the specific parties involved in the dispute or the outcome of any deliberations on this matter were recorded in the available data. ## Approval of Meeting Minutes [timestamp: 01:01] The board reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. Allen made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. The motion carried, and the minutes were approved. ## Update on Homeless Shelter Tour [timestamp: 01:33] The task force received an update regarding an upcoming tour of various homeless shelters, scheduled for February 26th. The discussion was informational in nature, providing members with details about the planned site visits. No specific concerns, debates, or additional details were recorded in connection with this agenda item beyond the announcement of the tour date. The item served as a logistical update to keep task force members informed of the upcoming activity. ## Supportive Services and Prevention Services Committee Report [timestamp: 02:04] TC presented the Supportive Services and Prevention Services Committee Report at the January 26, 2026 meeting. The presentation covered the committee's findings related to homelessness services, with discussion focused on the following areas: - **Service Gaps:** TC outlined gaps identified by the committee in current homelessness services and support systems. - **Future Plans:** The committee shared plans and considerations for addressing the identified service gaps going forward. The item was informational in nature, and no formal action or vote was taken as a result of the presentation. *Note: Additional detail on specific findings, data points, or recommendations discussed during this agenda item was not available in the source materials for this summary.* ## Funding and Partnership Committee Report [timestamp: 21:15] Sub-chair Wershman presented the Funding and Partnership Committee Report, providing the board with an overview of the committee's recent discussions and deliberations. The committee's report covered three primary areas: - **Current funding landscape:** The committee reviewed the organization's existing funding sources and overall financial position. - **Potential reallocations:** Discussions were held regarding the possibility of redirecting or reallocating funds, though specific details were not provided in the summary record. - **SAMHSA grant terminations:** The committee addressed the impact of recent terminations of grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which represented a notable development affecting the organization's funding outlook. The report was presented as informational in nature, meaning no votes or formal actions were taken as a direct result of this agenda item. The discussion appears to have been intended to keep the full board apprised of funding developments, particularly in light of the SAMHSA grant terminations, which may carry implications for program delivery or budget planning. No additional speakers beyond Sub-chair Wershman were noted in connection with this item. ## Peer Cities and Shelter Models Committee Report [timestamp: 35:17] Council Member Beasley presented a report on behalf of the Peer Cities and Shelter Models Committee, providing an overview of the committee's purpose and its planned activities going forward. The presentation was informational in nature, with the committee outlining its focus on examining effective shelter models by looking to peer cities for guidance and best practices. A key component of the committee's upcoming work will involve presentations from peer cities, which are intended to help inform the committee's understanding of what shelter approaches have proven successful in comparable jurisdictions. No vote or formal action was taken on this item, as it served as an introductory briefing on the committee's scope and direction. The report was received as informational by the body. ## Community Engagement Committee Report [timestamp: 47:33] The Community Engagement Committee presented an informational report on its plans to conduct engagement sessions with various community groups to gather input on homelessness solutions. Key speakers on this item were **Chuck Allinger** and **Jeannie Ramsey**, who outlined the committee's planned outreach efforts. The presentation focused on the committee's approach to engaging different segments of the community as part of a broader effort to collect perspectives and input that could inform homelessness-related initiatives and solutions. No vote or formal action was taken on this item, as it was presented for informational purposes only. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the meeting minutes --- ## Full transcript for the Mayor's Homeless Task Force. Welcome for 2026. It's gonna be a good year. We're gonna get some exciting work done. It was great to look at some of the committee reports and the work that's been done in between last meeting. But we wanna really hold this to time. So we will start, we will go ahead and start and call this meeting to order. Do I need to approve that? Approve the meeting summary? Yeah, no, just to call to order. Okay, good. All right, so can you all take a few minutes and look at the minutes? We've had some corrections. So if you can take a few minutes and see if there's any corrections to the minutes and then somebody would make a motion to approve if there's no discussion. Okay, thank you. Allen had one correction. We needed to add a couple of names to people that were at his committee. But is there anybody else? So we have a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second? Second. All right, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, the minutes are approved. Next, update on the tour of the homeless shelter and facility. Thank you all so much for responding to the Doodle Poll. We do have a date that has been picked. I believe it's February 26th. We are still confirming with some of the shelters, but it's looking like we're going to the Winter Weather Program, New Life Day Center, the Men's Hope Center. There was another. Rescue mission? Salvation Army. Salvation Army and the rescue mission. So that looks like where the site visits will be. We hope that all of you can attend. We hope that that date works for you. But stay tuned for the schedule. But keep the February 26th a little bit open on your calendar. Okay. I'm gonna stop talking now. No, no. You want me to go ahead? I don't know that I have anything. Announcements from co-chairs. Do you have anything? Okay, I think we're good. I think we should just move right into committee reports. So the first committee report is supportive services and prevention services with TC. Well, happy new year to everybody. Hope everybody had a good one. Okay, so our committee met. And I just want to thank everyone on our committee for their input. We briefly went over the 2026 LexCount. Jeff went over that with us. Then we started, we just dove right into it. And so we discussed what it meant for services within the context of homelessness. And so we had quite a bit of dialogue about what the services look like. So we discussed that. And so then we came to a conclusion that it constitutes homelessness as it relates to the services. The services and activities, support exits, the homelessness on whether it stands alone. So then we came up, we talked about not every case looks the same. So it's not like if we're dealing with someone that is having mental health issues versus a grandparent raising a child. So we looked at those different things. We looked at housing navigation and housing search assistance, financial literacy and budgeting, employment training and job placement. Those were some of the areas that we had discussed as far as services was concerned. We looked at the populations that we are, we represent here in Fayette County. Families experiencing homelessness due to maybe job loss would be so different than someone that is an unaccompanied adult maybe with mental health issues or substance abuse. So, and I liked how Charlie Corn at one size does not fit at all. So, and that was great. I'll say, so as we went on, we started looking at service inventory. So whether or not it was a comprehensive, a date to date list of our services that actually exist in the community. And so through McKinney-Vento office last year, we actually put together a list of our services that we could actually give our families and actually anyone that asked for it. When we had it published, we actually put it in Goodwill so that people could actually have access to it. So that was one of the things that we did. Jeff Haram's office also has a listing of housing support and services. And then we started thinking about other services that are within the community that actually provides different supports. I think the main thing that we really dove into was when we started talking about maintaining current inventories that are due to frequent changes of providers like funding program, capacity, referrals to networks. And we really talked about the referral system, assessments, follow-ups, follow-throughs with people that are actually experiencing homelessness. Not necessarily someone that might be experiencing mental health issue. You can't just hand them a listing and say, okay, here, here's the resources because they still may need some of that extra support. They need case management. Case management was another thing that we talked about with services. What services in our community actually provide case management? So we were really looking into it. We actually talked about identifying the service gaps. What were some of our gaps within our community? Which again, it goes back to whether or not they have some kind of referral system. How does a referral system look like? Which populations experiencing homelessness has limits or no assessment to appropriate services? And then we came up, James actually came up with this phrase of our buckets. So we had our buckets, our different buckets of our people that are experiencing homelessness, which are chronic homelessness could be a long-term situation. It might be that that person that is experiencing homelessness it might be someone that is addiction. So we've got, it will be long-term for them for services. Individuals that are newly homeless would be sort of kind of a situation sort of in the middle of the road. And then we had situational homelessness, which would be a short-term, which would be a crisis or an emergency. It might be a sickness that just came up. I can't go to work and now I'm having eviction and those kinds of things. So we looked at, we had three different phases. So long-term, middle of the road, and then our short-term challenges. Again, we looked at intake assessment and navigating the challenges. We discussed the lack of clear intake and assessment processes, that there are no single point of contact universally in our community. So there's not just a one system type of thing. This makes it difficult to match people to the appropriate services. So we had a long meeting, y'all. I fed them though. Okay, so then we looked at, we talked about the limitations with federal funding, the HUD funding, the different fundings that actually comes in for ongoing housing costs, that sometimes that could really strain the budget with the, excuse me, the availability for ongoing costs. Then we started looking at diversions of strategies. And so we really talked about systems navigating, navigations concerns. So Reverend McFarland had a critical question. If I became homeless tomorrow, what do I do? Who do I call? And when you think about that, I mean, anyone sitting in this room, what would you do? Who would you call? Do you know who to call? Do you know where to go? And so we really had a lot of discussion about that. And so our consensus was that there was no clear, simple answer to that. And so we acknowledge that major system failures as individuals in crisis cannot reasonably be expected to navigate a complex system on their own without some kind of help, some kind of assistance. All right, we went on in. So then we started talking about our next step. So we wanted to really look at what some of our community, major community partners, stakeholders, actually how they have their system set up. So we have scheduled for our next meeting on February the 2nd from 11 to 1230 at the Davis Park Workforce Center. We are going to have a panel of some of our community partners, New Beginnings, St. James, the McKinney-Vento Program from Fayette County Public Schools, Rescue Mission, Community Action. So we're bringing those partners to actually to the table so that we can talk about how they actually have their system set up. What referral system? So do they do assessments? So we're gonna start there to find out exactly what is in our community and where we need to go from there. On my end, one of the things that I'm doing, especially since we deal with mostly students with families that are homeless, I have started putting together what I call an advisory team. I have already a couple of students. I have some of my parents. I'm waiting on one of my grandparents to notify me. And so I wanna sit down with that group and I wanna find out from them what were their needs, what services was provided, what challenges did they have trying to navigate through the system. So really getting some real insight on how they actually navigated through the system and whether or not they were able to sustain it or fall behind. So we're gonna be meeting within the next week or so. And then something else that, you want me to go and talk about poverty assimilation? Okay. So then we had brought up about us participating in poverty assimilation. Melissa Tibbs of Community Action I met last week. And so we talked about how we can actually participate in that. It's gonna take us about a month to plan it. So we're tentatively penciling in March the 4th. It's a two hour project that we will be doing. The location is to be announced. So I'm waiting for them to call me back and give me a okay on our location. But as soon as I have all that information, I will be sending out a registration form for you to sign up. If you're more interested in getting more information, I did bring some pamphlets about the poverty assimilation, but I think it will be quite interesting. I've taken it twice. And my second time I took it, I was a little disappointed. I was like, I've done this for 30 years. How did I not, how did I end up in the shape I was? But you would be surprised trying to navigate through those systems. So, and so there will be different scenarios that we will all participate in. We may even be collaborating with our leadership through Fayette County Public Schools as well. Okay, thank you. Does anybody have, yeah, any questions for TC? Or anybody else in the committee? Actually, anybody on my board, if I left out anything, you're welcome to pick. Who's on your committee? Can you, can raise hands for folks that are, okay. Great, great, great. Thank you. Was there any conversations at all when you're talking about community partners and other community agencies bringing them together, were there any community partner ideas or models that were kind of the unusual suspects of like maybe not social services that you saw of any folks coming together? As an example, like Jubilee Jobs works a lot with employers, employers that are pretty cognizant of understanding, you know, the needs of maybe people that are entering into the workforce. Was there any ideas or models around something like that? One of the things I did as McKinney-Vento last year was I wanted to know what was out in the community. So I started a community table talk. And so our first meeting was actually in September. And so there were like 12 partners that actually showed up. By the end of the school year, we had almost 98 on our list. And there were so many community partners out there, ones that we didn't know that was actually serving our population, some that we discovered that we were actually overlapping services. So we were able to come to not everybody, not all 98 came at once, but we would have a good every month, at least a good 30 to 40 community partners coming from so many different directions. And so that was so impactful to know that we do have a lot of services in Fayette County. It's just bringing us all to the table and seeing who offers what. So that was very fruitful. Faith communities always pop up in my mind too, because I do a lot of work. Yeah. Anybody else? All right. Before we move on to the next committee, which is funding and partnership, I think Commissioner Lanter and Jeff Heron wanted to just talk real briefly. We've had some announcements today that came down regarding SAMHSA funding, which might be in consideration of folks as we're talking about funding. Is that correct? Yeah, thank you. And I try really hard not to speak in these meetings any more than I have to, but there was some news this morning that was pretty relevant to the committee and to this conversation in particular that I felt like the task force needed to be in the loop on. And unfortunately it happened after our funding committee met, so we didn't have a chance to discuss it in the committee. This morning, it really came in late last night, so overnight, the city election and LFUCG itself received a letter of termination on a SAMHSA grant that we've been operating for a number of years. This particular grant covers expenses for purchasing and distributing Narcan, about 8,000 doses annually. It pays for a position that supports that work, and then some evaluation, which is standard on these grants for the University of Kentucky. That grant was ended overnight. We were told to immediately cease operations and end the grant. And just also relevant to that, at least that we're aware of, three other agencies in the city received the same notice on their SAMHSA grants. All of these were grants that work in some way with the homeless population, so I think that's why it's relevant for them to be aware of this. Because when you combine all of the ones that we're aware of, Lexington lost about $3 million in federal funding overnight last night. The impact of that's something we're all still assessing. It won't be immediate. Nothing ever is like overnight all of a sudden. And then there's some stuff you have to evaluate. Can you fund it with other things? So no one can tell you right now what the full impact of that is, but it's significant. And I think it leads into the theme that you're gonna hear from the funding committee, which is we need to be very aware of the limitations of resources as we have conversations about what services and programs that we're considering, because one big element of that is paying for it, obviously. I don't wanna speak for them, but both Jeff and David Shad at Hope Center, they were one of the agencies that lost funding. They also know a lot about this and could answer any questions if anyone, or if either of you wanna add anything as based on what I know. We lost a grant that's about 500,000. Hope Center's, I think I told you it was about 900,000, David, is that correct? That was two awards. So those two together are about 900,000. And Chrysalis House lost over $1 million in a single grant. Those are the three we're aware of. Oh, Community Action, I forgot Community Action. Sorry, if you guys are here, I apologize. And this would maybe be the most relevant. Community Action had a similar SAMHSA grant that they used for homeless street outreach, and that is gone as of, how much? Mountain Comp Care has also lost grants. They work outside of Lexington, but they do do some work in Fayette County. It's likely that the community mental health centers have lost funds, and we just haven't found out from them yet, and that would be New Vista, it would be Health First, it would be any one of them could have had some of these funds and lost them. And I think it's important for everyone to know these agencies didn't do anything wrong. They were running the grants appropriately. The LFECG grant we lost, the administration had signed off on it very recently and said they were fine with it. So it very much caught everyone by surprise. It's nationwide. The report, NPR did a story this morning, and they totaled it at about $3 billion nationally that was eliminated. We had two separate ones. One of them was actually the final year of the grant. We had a grant for medication-assisted treatment to help refer people for Vivitrol in particular, but other medications as well. The second one was a new grant, just awarded in October, which was a project for homeless men who had co-occurring disorders that had mental health and substance use issues, providing transitional housing, supportive services, case management, also clinical mental health care, just sort of basic wraparound services for that population. And as I said, it was just awarded recently, so we're particularly surprised by that one, which, you know, a lot of the discussion has been about the importance of transitional housing and providing supportive services, and this was, it seemed perfectly in line with the recommendations, and the notice we received with it, it was no longer in line with funding priorities, so, yeah. Thank you. I think that's just a great example as we go through this process of trying to identify opportunities to level up what we're trying to do, that we try our best to do it based on what we know we have access to, right, and not making anything, relying upon any kind of external resources to our community. That's gonna be very crucial, because those funds, obviously, they can come and go on a dime, and at the end of the day, our situation doesn't change. We still have people that have needs today, right? So with that being said, let's move forward to funding and partnerships. Sub-chair Wershman? Oh, there you go. Thank you. I'll be fairly brief and let other members of our committee jump in if they want to. I think the work of our subcommittee on funding and strategic partnerships is largely dependent on the will of this group as a whole and the work of the other committees to understand what outcomes we're hoping to see, and it's difficult to come up with a funding or partnership strategy without fully understanding at least a semblance of what those outcomes might be, whether it be physical structures or programs for services, and then, frankly, what is amenable to the community. But we did do some kind of a deep dive into the current funding that the city has for homeless intervention and prevention. Of course, we hadn't had this news when we met. We talked about the difference in the federal funding and the city budget funding that we have, and really, we're just gathering information on those things. I think the largest part of our work this time, and probably for our next meeting, is gathering information on what funding we have, where it's going, where maybe in things like the winter shelter, it's going maybe a little bit inefficiently, and there'd be hope to find ways to reallocate those monies. Of course, we know, and Ms. Hamilton was helpful in talking us through the difficulties in the budget process with the city as a whole and moving monies around and starting to have some conversation about if we wanted to do away with the funding of a winter shelter, how would that work? There would be a phasing issue. Obviously, we can't build a shelter to accommodate for that overnight. So really, again, I would characterize most of our discussion so far as information gathering. I think we've got quite a bit of that left to do and having enjoyed hearing from TC and I'm interested in hearing from the other subcommittees here on maybe starting to take shape some of what the will of this whole committee may be interested in. We did identify some interests from subcommittee members on programs that are workforce development related. So Mr. Hall has talked a little bit about the Stable Recovery Program. I think we're gonna, as a committee, invite them to speak to this group sometime in our next meeting or sometime thereafter if they're available. There was some discussion about permanent supportive housing and some of the challenges of those models. Happy to get into the weeds of that if that's something people are interested in. But we did, talking with Charlie, decide that we're gonna talk with Rick McQuadey and see how maybe his funding can be used more efficiently to support things like that. But that really, I think, sums up the bulk of our conversation. I would love for some of the other committee members to fill in the gaps that I miss. We also started to talk about how programs are funded in other cities. So maybe doing some comparison of ratios of public versus private funding in other cities. And we talked a lot about the Salt Lake City model and getting more information about that. Thank you, Council Member. That's a great point. We have requested some additional information that Charlie and his team are pulling for us on some other peer city models. And to that point, exactly what levels of spending from local governments and peer cities versus federal funding versus just private philanthropic dollars. I think that will be some interesting information to receive. And there is a project specifically in Salt Lake City that I think was visited in a chamber trip a few years ago that we're looking at. Charlie sent me some information on that. I haven't gotten through that yet. But I think we'll continue to do that as well. Again, as we see the consensus of these other subcommittees take shape, I think we'll be able to identify other models throughout the country that are working, that are in line with what this group has the will to continue to research. And then we can certainly dig into how partnerships perform to make those things happen and what sort of capital stacks they use and ongoing funding. Yeah, I just got a quick question. I see where Mr. Hall's quote was, who has, he who has the gold makes the rules. How much did y'all talk about, and maybe this is to Abdul's point, if we don't want to really rely on outside funding, federal funding, then maybe we don't. But is there anything in this wheelhouse that they are funding and are supportive of that we should focus on? And I guess that question's to Charlie and Jeff. Charlie and Jeff or whoever else is monitoring what the feds are funding. Yeah, I've got a fair question, Council Member. And it's something that we will always have to keep our finger on the pulse of. When you work in this federal funding arena, you're used to every two to four to six years completely readjusting and refocusing based on the government's priorities. And while some of what we're seeing now may be a little more significant in its extremity or it's how much attention it's getting, it's not that unusual for a new administration to come in and just change the direction. And so I think that's something that both our office and organization and also organizations like nonprofits are deeply familiar with. And what we have been watching is, okay, so to that point, what does the current administration want to fund? And we're starting to get a picture of that. I think where we're getting some mixed signals are with what happened overnight, because a lot of what was just defunded was what we thought they were wanting to fund. So that's something we'll have to continue to monitor because it's an ever-moving target. By the time you adjust, some new parties come in and they've changed it again or they've changed their priority. One quick thing I would add to what the group said, because I thought it was a really good conversation and very important in the current financial context, we may not be able to say, let's add money for X, let's add money for Y. But what we may be able to do is say, we have an affordable housing fund. Can we set aside a percentage of that for Permanent Supportive Housing? Or can we give priority points on applications for projects that house people directly from the streets? Along the same lines, we have economic development funding. We have in our economic development office, Kevin Stem's office, we have programs that fund job training. Do we need to use those funds to fund job training for people who are exiting homelessness? So I think that's the kind of creativity that this group's gonna look at, because we're gonna have to, because the funding environment is not as rich as it has been in recent years, and it's definitely headed in the opposite direction. And I'll add, Council Member Brown, I don't know of any specific programs to fund the work that we're talking about, but the general policy direction that this administration is moving within HUD, at least, and I don't work with as many programs within HUD as Charlie or Jeff do, but work in quite a few of them, is remove, and this decision, frankly, while it is maybe a little bit unorganized, is consistent with the policy of moving away from programs that are fully funded by the federal government, and moving towards programs that are partially funded with the ability to attract private capital. For instance, in public housing, since Trump's first term in office, there's been a massive focus on privatizing public housing authorities, and there's a program called RAD that's to do that. So I think if there are federal programs to be attractive to this administration, they're gonna have to tie with some sort of private capital and be something that is not operated solely with the funding of federal grants. That's an opinion, really, but that, I don't know if Charlie has any. I think it's fair, and I think Sally or maybe one of our finance people would add to this. I think the feeling's mutual at this point. I think we're, at this point, we don't wanna fund programs exclusively with federal dollars any longer, because we now know that that could mean that tomorrow they're done, they're gone. All right, any other questions there? I have one. Yes. What's the, the council has set aside 2.8 million for the activities recommended by the task force. Is that for, just up for grabs? Is it a capital, is it? I can talk about that. So we had a fund balance discussion from remaining funds from the last fiscal year, and there was $2.8 million left over from that, from the discussions and what we had already allocated. So there was a motion made to then put the exit, the remainder towards what we, what comes out of this task force, so that we have some money set aside to get us started. I think there's agreement that that is a small amount compared to what we likely need, but that it would at least have some money set aside for us. But it doesn't have any restrictions on it at this point. And I think that's, that's continued work that our committee is focused on. I think I failed to mention that trying to identify what sources of funds are what you would consider one time like this, or have the ability for ongoing operational support. And I think those are two very different capital structures and trying to identify what's available within those two items is going to be important. You know, again, back to the continued information gathering that we're trying to do. Just, I would add to it, I think we've gotten similar questions before, Mr. Hall, on the downtown, I always get the name wrong, the purple shirts group, the taxing district downtown that pays for that, that money all stays with that group as well. But like you said, it's a lot of the same goal of keeping downtown clean and safe. Thank you. So maybe it's an opportunity that, I don't know, somehow we engage them and have them be part of the conversation, right? I think ultimately, Ms. Sally would have to tell us if they even were to fight for us enough money, that she'd want to go to the mat. Oh, no, it's a significant amount of money. Yeah, I think she'd want to go to the mat for it. No, I don't think there's any problem with talking to them. At this point, the majority of the call is very open for discussion. And I'm completely involved in talking to them. Believe there are, you know, I think- There is some value in talking to them, but I think that, you know, their money is governed by statute. So they have certain things that they can use it for. And I will say, and Jeff probably has more experience, the DLMD that, you know, not that they address homelessness directly, but I consider them a partner of the city and we work pretty, they work pretty well and communicate with us about where we need to focus. The downtown Lexington Management District. Just a quick reminder, we are broadcasting so if people can use their microphones. Yeah, so no, I think we can have a conversation about whether visit Lexington Tourism Bureau, what they could use their money for in regards to this effort. I think they'd be open to it. But they do have some guidance on what they can and cannot use that money. And you're on that board, aren't you? I used to be on that board. Yeah, I'm not now. I'm on DLMD's board though. So we're gonna count on you. It is a really fascinating conversation though, I think to have. And maybe there might even be other partners that the benefit of the work that's being done might be worth a set aside, you know, by some of these other folks. Interesting. Anybody else? That's good, okay. The next committee is Peer Cities and Shelter Models. I'll give that report. So well, first I wanna thank Council Member Beasley for the co-chair of that committee. Then all the members, excuse me, of the committee for their involvement with the committee. So we first just kind of started off with just a purpose and I will read that purpose and then I'll go into just the nuts and bolts of what we did. So the purpose of that committee is the goal of the Peer City and Shelter Models Subcommittee is to focus squarely on what works. Our charge is to examine shelters and housing models used in peer cities and evaluate which approaches are best, excuse me, best meets the needs of Lexington and our unhoused communities. This work is not about debating locations, siting or other correlated factors. Instead, we're intentionally centering the conversation on what type of shelter or housing model, its structure, services, dignity and outcomes. So we can identify the solution that are effective, humane and responsive to the realities on the ground here in Lexington. So with that charge, we started off with a presentation from EHI consultant and they just pretty much gave the same emergency shelter needs presentation that was given to the council this year, this past year. And we use that kind of just as that foundation so that getting into this conversation so we can know one, the needs based on that study, but then two, kind of our pathway forward. So with that, after that, we had some good conversations, good conversations with Mr. Ed Holmes and then the only other two action items were setting our recurring meetings. So we decided to meet the first Wednesday at 3 p.m. of each month, both hybrid. So you can join via Zoom or Teams and or you can come to the fifth floor conference room and hang out with us. And then lastly, we set our agendas for the next meeting and we're looking at starting to go ahead and dive into some of those peer cities. So we have the Nashville Rescue Mission, which is gonna present on what they offer in Nashville. And we're waiting for confirmation from the Community First Village in Austin, Texas for our next meeting. And then moving to March, we'll have the Community Care Campus from Louisville present and that's kind of what we did for that meeting. So, thank you. I do wanna add that since the discussion before, we need to make sure, I think, that we ask them to talk about their funding for the different programs and their masks so that we know if it's... something that we could maybe tap into or emulate here, so. Any other committee members have something to add or some questions for this group? We're very interested, too, if there's other models you want us to look at. We were, you know, the first task force meeting, we had some ideas, but, and that kind of came up at our committee meeting, but if there's other groups you want us to look at, please let us know. Okay. One question. Yeah. One, just following for the, when you're looking at the models, Alan from DLP, in speaking with all of my members and in the great committee meeting we had with Mr. Hall and Zach and Sally and our group, nowhere was there just a general, I would word it, most of the goal for any type of our discussion seemed to be like some type of product at the end that would help move people up and lift people up and not just a general, did you call it like warehousing, like just a flat, we're just building spots to hold people, that everything seemed to have some type of, I don't know if I'd call it a program, but some type of, if we're going to offer this resource, it has a goal with it that we help you move into a better space in life and not just a flat housing product. So I was going to put that out there. I don't know if that was looking. You're stating that the ones that you, we want to look at, do have that outcome, or we want to have that outcome. There was no, anybody in our group, nobody had passion or could think of a philanthropy group in town that would just do flat housing. Everything that's been funded well that I'm aware of and that Mr. Hall has spoken about all have a program component to help somebody recover and get back on their feet in whatever capacity that is for them and the best they can, but there was some expectation of a growth or forward momentum, not just only housing, if that makes sense, or correct me if I'm using bad terminology, but yeah. I would agree. I would say that our conversations send around and we discuss wraparound services and different resources that will be provided or could be provided at those locations, as well as we talked about would there be a need to look at multiple locations. So I think it's a deeper dive, one, into the exact needs of the city of Lexington, knowing that we need places for families, we need places possibly for pets, we need places for, you know, maybe more for women than men, just looking across the board at the exact needs, but then tying it into what is best for Lexington, whether it be one location, whether it be multiple locations, and kind of doing a deeper dive, but all of those conversations send around having wraparound services and programs tied to it. So yes, sir. I think, though, you know, so this is where I get kind of bogged down because this could get bigger and bigger and bigger, right? And so always my, when I first started working at Greenhouse 17, I had this idea of kind of like what success was, you know, and so I had this sort of idea that you got out of a relationship, you moved on, you were self-sufficient. And then I was kind of bumping into other families that my goal of self-sufficiency and success looked really different, that they might always need some supportive care. So I do think it's a really interesting conversation to keep touching base on because I don't know, there are folks that are unhoused or at risk of being homeless that might always need ongoing care of no fault of their own. So it's an interesting piece that when we're talking about funding, and if we don't have good leverage to get interest in that, then where do we get that for those folks and then how do we leverage folks that might be really excited about seeing people kind of transition out? So I just, I love that you brought that up, but I think it's a big philosophical conversation as we move forward on how we address the needs. Because some people, you know, you might be 45 and have a disability, but you're not ready for, you know, get disability and you're not 50, you know, you're not getting Social Security and you're just, you're just kind of lost. You're in that limbo place. So I think we should turn around and come back to that at some point throughout. Yeah. I'd like, you know, I think that's really important, Diane. And I think that what is being stated is important, but it goes back to what TC said. Each of the folks are individuals. So the need for some 45-year-old women who are disabled and there's no place for them to live, whether it be assisted living or whether it be nursing homes or whatever it is, that's different than when we talk emergency housing. We all, you know, I think that's pretty clear. But the idea that there's a path for everybody is important. Does that path mean they're going to be totally independent? Some people never, you know, they don't have family. We all have family members at some point that have not been totally independent. But when particularly our elderly disabled, see, I think that the focus and our families. So I think it's so important, Alan, that there is a path, but I think we need to be clear. We don't want to limit what that path is. And I want to jump on board on that because I was sitting there thinking the most difficult clients that I ever worked with were those who had so little potential to elevate. Because there are all kinds of programs to elevate, but there are not many people that want to contribute resources to help those who kind of hover at the bottom for physical, mental, or just a variety of reasons. And they're often the ones that take the most energy in the shelters. Now, David and Jenny can speak to that better than me now. But that lower, like 5%, are the biggest challenge. And I'm sure in the winter shelters, I mean, the purpose of that is to make sure people don't die. Get people out of the cold. So that's our bottom, that's our first goal. You know, Maslow's hierarchy of theory, you know, is you've got to provide somebody safety. And then the resources that we can tap in from other community partners. But we can't forget that because it's not very fun sometimes to think about that lower level. And I think, too, that it can be cost effective as well because a lot of those folks will end up in custody, you know, like they end up in jail. So we're dealing with them in some way. So it would be better to get them into programmings and support or housing that fits their needs versus just being on the street or incarcerated, which I think is a whole other, you know, piece. But, yeah. And I'll just add, like, historically, when we look at our, like, housing assessments and our coordinated entry, like, we've always struggled with that same group that, like in the old VI-SPDAT, it was, like, those four, those people who scored a four, they're not really high enough to meet for, like, supportive housing, but they're too low to really, they just fall in this in-between category. And they need a little bit of help, but not quite as much help. And so we tend to focus on the extremes. But, yeah, there's just so many people that fall in that gap that probably just a little bit of help could go a long way in terms of meeting that need, and they're not going to need as intensive follow-up for as long, but they're going to need something. So, you know, it is that, there is that group that I've seen many times that just flounder around because they're not at the top of anybody's list. I also just want to add briefly that we know that for the last several years, we've had to operate this emergency winter weather shelter. And so there is a need, even this year alone. We just opened the winter shelter in November, and we've seen over 500 individuals. I haven't checked today, but as of yesterday, 570 unique individuals. So we know there is a need for this emergency space as well, especially in times like this where you are literally trying to keep people out of the weather so they don't die. Tiffany does have on the website, I don't know if all of you have gone to the website, but you can go to the website, you can click on the committees, you can see when the committees next meet, but we did want to put together kind of a little library, so if there's information like that that you want to share, if you've come across a really interesting model or a reading material or a video piece or a journal article that you want to share to the group, I think it's really helpful. It just keeps getting us immersed in this conversation, because I think we all hold kind of nuggets of information, but it just sort of expands our knowledge. So if we're done with that conversation, the last committee is community engagement. Thank you. Chuck Allinger, I, along with Jeannie Ramsey, our co-chair, I found out if you don't come to a meeting, you become a chair, so I won't miss another meeting, I promise. Our mission statement, and I think Todd was late to the last meeting, so he became a chair of one, too, so I just pass it along. So our mission statement was community engagement, develop strategies to engage residents, businesses, and neighborhood organizations to ensure transparency, reduce misinformation, and build consensus to extent feasible around siting and service delivery. As you can see, there's our members and who all was present. This subcommittee, we discussed eight engagements, and the six engagements are the ones that are in bold, and we decided that we were going to try to do two each month. That was our goal, and we'd have a moderator for each one of those. So our February ones are going to be the Street Voice Council, and that one will be on Thursday, February 12th at noon at the Lyric Theater, and Jeannie and Greg are going to moderate that one. We have the Business Leader one that's going to be Thursday, February 26th, and Todd Abdul will be moderating that. The March ones are going to be, I'm going to lead the Neighborhood Council one that will meet on the 15th of March, and we'll moderate the meeting. Tanya and I will work to bring the neighborhood presidents as well as community and neighborhood providers for this meeting, and also the faith communities, and that one's to be determined. We're trying to do about every two weeks, and that one's going to be, Jeannie will moderate that one. And then in April, we'll be doing public safety. That one we're working on. Jay has talked with Tyler because the mayor's office already has a team working, so we're going to invite them. So Jay's going to work on that, and at the end of April, beginning of May, we're going to have a general public meeting, and Jeannie and I will moderate that, and we're going to ask the PIO to create a survey for that meeting. So we thought we could kind of break it down to six different groups that we could engage with, and then we're now in the process of gathering questions that we can kind of keep similar questions for each one, and then we'll just kind of let the meeting be as organic as possible from what we hear, but with kind of just starting questions. So we're taking those questions right now by the 23rd, so if you have questions you would like us to ask, please send that to my office or send it to the chairs here, and we'd like to have that in by the 23rd. Our next meeting's going to be on the 29th. The last one was on Zoom. We'll probably do that next one on Zoom. It seemed that it accommodates everybody. We did have a question for Law, and you're here, so I'll ask you, what is our requirements when it comes to the open meetings, public notices? I think we've handled it adequately so far. It's normally you do a 24-hour advance notice. And that's why I told them, all the meetings that we schedule, we just have to make sure they're all 24 hours in advance, correct? If you're not going to do it on Zoom, it needs to be at a location that's accessible to the general public, should someone want to attend the meeting. Could you say that again, please? If it's not going to be on Zoom, it needs to be at a location that's accessible to the general public, so that they can attend the meeting if they want to. Thank you. And then lastly... Council Member, if you all want to send the dates as they're finalized, there's a process for the official public notification of a meeting. We can run that through the mayor's office, and they'll take care of all that for you. Perfect. If we're going to have at least six of these, we want to make sure that we get them all in there. And we want to try to get them ahead of time so we can kind of let you all know. But that was kind of our goal. Six meetings. This was our engagement. If there's others that you think that we need to engage, we thought this hit kind of the general topic for the discussion. And then the last one, we were talking about social media and how would we do that to get input from the general public. We wanted to kind of gather these first meetings and then speak to the general public. And Jenny, if you have anything else to add, feel free. Well, the part of our questions that we want to present to these groups, it will be basically what is it that they want to know. We're not saying that we have task force, I mean, whatever information that we've got, but we don't have any final product. So we want to hear what kind of final product, what kind of thoughts that the community has, these different groups. That way they're engaged in our process. But at the end of the time, when we do have some kind of final recommendations, we definitely then will take them back to these groups. And that's one of the questions we're asking them. Are you willing to follow through, not just in giving your input now and your questions, but when we complete it? Now we all know what the big fight's going to be. They're going to say, where is it? And that's why it's important, and I appreciated that you all were stating that already. It's important we're looking at models, we're looking at other things, not about location. But that's the first thing. I've already talked to several of the faith community groups, and they're very interested in having their voices shared with all you all. But that's going to be, you know, so we've got a step one, wouldn't you say that, Chuck? It's like step one, step two? Certainly. I agree. So that, the first round of questions is not, it's really drawing out their concerns and their input. We think it's so important, we think you all are wasting your time, we don't want it in our neighborhood. We know we're going to hear all that, but that's not what we're after. We want people to feel that engagement and be able to have, you know, back and forth. And our goal is to try to have this presented back to the full committee in the middle of May when we have that meeting there. So that's what our goal is for the committee. I think that's all. Thank you. So Jenny kind of teed this up. I was thinking about this question, and she's obviously done some legwork with this, and we have Reverend McFarland here, and I'd like for him to potentially chime in on this. And others who have been involved in this process. I've had a sense for a long time, and I know there are community faith organizations. One that comes to mind is the BUILD organization, I may not have that name exactly right, but I think people know what I'm talking about, that gathers various denominations and so forth together. And I mean, just to get to the point here, I wonder how active a group like that or some group like that that is an ecumenical group that considers all faiths in the community would be to developing a model whereby the churches in the community got more involved financially in this process. And I say something, maybe it's as simple as, you know, second collections in your church once a month. You commit that we're going to take a second collection once a month for whatever we were able to determine the need that was going to go to a particular need, and maybe it's some of these things that programs and budgets can't cover. I don't have any sense of what that is. You know, I know, I'm just curious what the faith leadership in the community would feel about that and how they would feel about what, in my opinion, is a significant responsibility of churches to help with this situation that we're dealing with. I mean, for most of the history of the United States, churches and families dealt with this problem. It wasn't as large maybe as it is now, but it was large, and that's who cared for a lot of the folks that we're talking about here. So if someone would like to address that, maybe inform me, because I'm not well informed there. I sure would appreciate it. Well, I've already spoken with BUILD themselves. They definitely are going to be involved in the listening, and some of the input that we'll ask is how much can you, and I know that, Reverend, you may have some other thoughts, but I will tell you, in my 27 years of being a faith-based group that has worked and depended on people's, you know, passion for living their faith, one of the hardest nuts to crack is to get, you know, the funds, not separately, separately they're generous as can be, but, you know, the idea of putting it in a general pot. No, separately as churches is fine, but I think that you find that they don't like to commingle, you know, I'm going to just say it, you know, me, the Catholics and the Baptists and the whoever's may not trust if we all put this money in together now. You know, it's an age-old thing. We've got our black church coalition, we've got all kinds of groups that have attempted, but when you're talking about big for this, I think that, yes, we need to ask them. That's some of their input, and they, you know. But based upon what you're sharing, it would appear to me that this committee, or this task force, would need to come from the work we do with something that's very specific about that it's coming from the mayor's office, that it's very specific about how these funds are going to be managed, so that there's not this them-and-us mentality, which is ridiculous, but we don't have that mentality that we trust that the money's going to be applied properly, and so it may take a bigger effort, and no disrespect meant than you, Jenny, getting up to Christ the King once a year and making an appeal. That reaches a group of people there, but that's only a small percentage of the people in the community that are going to church on any given Sunday, or not there on that Sunday that are reading their bulletin or can be informed. If the trust factor's an issue, then we need to have something that's fairly standard to show them that this is going to be handled this way. It's not going to this particular group of people, like the Catholic Action Center or this group. It's going to be co-mingled and managed in this way and used in this appropriations process. I was just curious. It sounds like we're not far off the starting line with that, right after your 27 years or whatever. Pastor, do you have any thoughts on that? Well, I definitely think that a consolidated effort is needed from our faith community. I've pastored here five years, and I have yet to see that cohesion from all of our ecumenical bodies. I think that with the reality of $3 million being cut from what we found out today, there is some way we can speak to all the faith leaders to speak to this initiative. Whichever subcommittee would like to take a stab at that, between community engagement or the funding subcommittee, I definitely think it's a great challenge. I think that a lot of churches will get involved in it, but it has to have a center as it relates to where the funding is going to go. I think it's a great need, and if we can magnify it soon enough and great enough, people will get behind it. There are various churches that already do their individual missions toward outreach. Our church is connected to Church Under the Bridge. We feed homeless people every Sunday, but that's just one area of providing food and giving out clothes and things of that nature. But I think for the greater effort of us consolidating together, even in funding, that is a greater stretch, but it can be done. I think it would even possibly take another subcommittee of faith leaders other than myself. I don't know what other faith leaders in this room, but I definitely think that that's something we can do if that's what we want to tap into, because we do know that the churches are strong enough to connect their passions to make this happen. So, yeah. Thank you. So as a follow-up to your statement, I've read your bio, and I see you have pastored in Texas and you've pastored in Brooklyn, New York. Do you have any experience in either of the locations you were in previously that would be similar to what we're talking about here? Did you observe a cohesion of churches of different faith backgrounds and economic backgrounds and location backgrounds coming together to do what we're talking about potentially proposing here? We're not necessarily addressing this area of homelessness, but definitely civic engagement and social justice, things that affect people that were part of our community in Texas and in New York. And, of course, it's the same across the board when you look at the disparities that many people in our community face. It's pretty much the same narrative, but as far as homelessness, no. I think you're on to a good thing, Lee, and I think, I know that the city's tried doing Lex Fund or what is it, anyway, what do you all have? Lex and Homelessness Fund. Again, you get people that say, we don't trust the government. You got to remember, if you're trying to get locals versus the institutions, and an institution, as you would know, they have budgets. They have their process. They may say we're committing X amount of dollars for this year or next year or whatever. Again, when you look at your funding group, yes, kickoff money is one thing, sustainability is the next, because if you get a new minister in, anything can happen, but I do think it's the obligation. I mean, we're based on the fact that it's the obligation of the faith community and the community to take care of the least of our brothers and sisters, so I think, absolutely. So just without letting the subject drop to Pastor McFarland's point, do we assign some responsibility to this task force for trying to gather representatives at the church level, not necessarily the parishioner level, but the church level, as a part of this task force to come together in a subcommittee? I don't know, I'm not trying to deflect this because I'm on the funding side, but I'm not sure that's the right group to approach it. I think there were one of these, actually, was it the last report, I think, talked about faith leaders? You all had it in that? So anyway, there's a committee that's been established here that it might be more appropriate to roll that into, but the effort to get those folks here and how that's organized is going to take some thought and take some planning, and do we just leave that with discussion today or do we try to put something into notes that we're going to address it in some form or fashion? I hate just to have a nice little chat about it and then that's the end of the discussion. Well with our committee, the faith group coming together are not just people from the pews, they are the faith leaders. You can't, I mean, you can ask people from the pews every day, that's general population basically. We're asking people who are decision makers in their faith communities to be the ones who are part of the listening session. So maybe we should even think about that being a coordinated effort with the committee. But like I said, we've already done some pre-discussion with the faith leaders, there's a difference. You can obviously tell that you've got members of the community and then you've got the leaders of that community, and we need the faith leaders to be able to share the questions. What we're asking them is to go to their communities, ask the questions, and bring them to us when we get ready for the listening sessions. So we're not just saying those who might, you know, we're asking for the decision makers. What I'm hearing a little bit, and correct me if I'm wrong, but can it be a more specific ask? So if there's already a conversation at faith leaders, can it also be, do you want to put a little, do you have a stake financially into the success of this and would you be willing to support that? And I wonder if that could come sooner than later in your, in the conversations when you gather folks together, because I go to First Presbyterian Church, which is right on Market Street. It's a big conversation in that church and I think they would be really interested to see, they do things like Just Lunch and they, you know, they do different things at Thanksgiving and holidays. But I think they would be really intrigued about that conversation about how to financially leverage their dollars that went and partnered with other faith communities. I don't mean to speak for them, I just go there, I'm not there, I'm not their leadership, but I think it's a, yeah, I'm not the chair of finance, but I think it's a really great conversation and I liked it too also when you're talking about Visit Lex, like there's other stakeholders that the success of this project might be worth them putting a little bit of money. I always pick on Chamber of Commerce, but that is also a livable, safe community. So you're, you know, you're Visit Lex and the downtown, you know, community and your faith leaders, like they have a stake in churches philosophically, I mean, it is kind of their mission, but also the others to be a livable and safe space, so. Just finally, is there a way that there are enough representatives of this committee or is there a way in which, you know, I would assume, Reverend McFarland, that you have a group of peers that you interact with in the community? I don't know if they're exclusively black pastors, if they're exclusively Baptist pastors, I don't know what that is, but there's clearly, if you got the word to the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church that he needed to gather up all the Presbyterian pastors and come together and the Methodist pastors, and of course, Jenny's well connected to the priests in the community through all of her activities over the years. You know, the Episcopal pastors, all this sort of thing. It appears to me that that's the way they need a proper private solicitation to at least have the conversation, and I think that's where those of us that are here need to potentially figure out how we could be involved in that. And I may be treading over ground that you've been trying to tread over, but I know you've received, Jenny, tremendous support from the Catholic community over the years, and I don't know about that. I understand that. We're totally involved with those others, too. Fair enough. I want you to know that. And I don't have any way to know that, but that being said, are there thoughts about how you reach these people and get them in one place at one time? Yeah. I think that that's one of the things we talked about, this being the first or second week of March, you know, Easter, all the, you know, their schedules. So I think that we can invite you or invite your group, for sure, on the 29th. Is that what it is, Chuck? When's our next meeting? Our next meeting is going to be on Wednesday, the 28th at 930. Okay. I mean, I think that can be a big topic of discussion because our first one's already set. That's Street Voice Council. That's simple. That's what we're getting together to. And we could take on the neighborhood and the faith community at that one. Do you think, Chuck, do both of them? Are you talking about the... I was talking about our next meeting. Are you talking about the meeting for the faith community one? No, I'm talking about our next meeting of the subcommittee. That's on the 28th. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I think that, you know, that gives us time because faith community, what we're planning is not to do them until the second... I think it's the second week of March. I've already gotten several dates from several churches, which none of them are Catholic, by the way. So I guess I better go check back with them. So... Yeah. They would be our first group we'd meet with in March. So we're looking at the first part of March to meet with the faith leaders, faith communities. I don't know if this should be a part of the business leaders outreach, but I would also like to see some conversations with the major healthcare providers here. I know when we were getting our community paramedicine program started, some of the funding for that program came from healthcare because this was a program that helped get services to people who were like the chronic users of the emergency medical services. So I think they might have a vested interest in helping this population as well to, you know, help clear up emergency rooms and hospital beds when you have someone who is now provided with stable healthcare and housing. I think that's an excellent point. That will be under Todd's purview with the business leaders and healthcare providers. I think that's great. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for, yeah, thanks for leaning into that piece, Councilwoman, because as I was listening to the conversation, I got to thinking really in my mind, the faith base is huge, but the whole community is even bigger, right? Because the business side of this. When the Supportive Services Committee went first and I saw financial literacy down there and I thought, yeah, I can see Fifth Third Bank, West Banco Bank, Chase Bank, PNC Bank going, hey, you know what, how do we get engaged with trying to support something like that, right? Because for West Banco, I can speak for them and go, yeah, you know what, I'd find some money to donate to the cause, right? So when I look at it from that perspective, I think there's a lot of different institutions in our community that if asked and given a vision would step up and go, we'll find a way to help out in some capacity. So I would encourage us as we're, especially on the outreach, right, that committee that we kind of set the tone for what we're trying to do and what we're trying to get accomplished, right? And then we can at least set expectations that we want you to be engaged verbally as well as financially and be totally committed to the cause. And if we do that properly, I think we'll get a greater amount of support than we probably think we can right now. So thanks for the conversation. It's been very vibrant. Right. I just want to follow up on that. If you have more suggestions like Council Member Sheehan, which I think was an excellent one we hadn't discussed, but I think is something we will definitely follow up with. If you have anybody else that you think we need to gauge that we haven't taken into account in this groups, then please follow through with sending us an email so we can make sure that they're contacted. Because we want to, as you said, get everybody involved. That's all the committee reports. Does anybody have any last minute thoughts or closing remarks? But we're going to get you out of here before 5 o'clock. Tiffany has something. I apologize. Yeah. I was going to mention one quick thing on the faith-based conversation. Yeah. Sure. And Jenny may want to mention this or elaborate on it. It doesn't have to be financial. There's other ways they can contribute, and I'm thinking of room at the end. You know, we used to have a faith-based shelter program here that was responsible for, would they do 10, 20 beds a night, anything throughout the winter, 25? That's a significant amount of shelter space that we lost, and they stopped it during COVID for obvious reasons and just never restarted it. So that's, I mean, that's a huge opportunity there. 25 beds would be very expensive to operate if churches could do it for free. I know last year, I know working with Jenny, we also came up with, because we had so many families that were parking in the parking lot at Walmart's, and we ended up with the sanctuary parking with one of the churches. So there is more than just financial that they can make a contribution. Well, you all, I want to close on reminding you that our next meeting is February 11th at 2 o'clock, but it is in the Council Chambers, second floor of Council Chambers. So it will not be here. So our next task force meeting will be at Council Chambers. We'll send out an email reminder, though, to you all, but just to get that in your mind. Thank you so much for the committee work you're doing. It looks to me like there's a little bit of cross, you know, pollinating between committees, which is really sort of cool. So open lines of communication, go and visit the website. It's full of information. You can check on, see what other folks are doing. And I think, yes, you have 2 o'clock, is it 200 East Main, that's what you're saying. That's the address. I thought it said 2 o'clock. I'm sorry. It's 3.30, 3.30. 3.30. 3.30. 3.30. 3.30. Thank you all.