Yn anghyfres, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n dweud bod y cyfrifiadau'n dweud y byddwn yn debygu'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n debygu'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Yn ystod y cyfrifiadau, mae'r cyfrifiadau'n digwydd. Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? The minutes will be adopted and accepted. Thank you so much. Announcements from me. I'm going to keep this really short, actually, again, because I think we have a lot of room and a lot of conversation to cover. A couple of people had mentioned it, but I also have it on my notes. In honor of Dolly Parton, I do think that we need to lift this meeting up a little bit into her work and to what she stood for. So I'm hoping that we bring sort of love and light to the conversation, along with her business acumen, so also with financial integrity. She was a woman that did both, and I think this committee is also struggling with doing both and challenged with it, but I think we can do that with grace. So that is the theme, I think, for this meeting. I'm going to move next to community engagement. I'm so sorry that I missed the town hall meeting, but we do have notes from the town hall meeting, and I'm going to turn this actually over to Councilmember Ellinger and Jenny Ramsey just to do a brief recap, but you can see the notes in your minutes. Thank you, Chair, and I'll let Ms. Ramsey also. She can chime in here after I get done. First off, I want to thank everybody who did attend. It was a pretty stormy night, and I was amazed that it was a PAC Senior Citizen Center. So we had a great turnout on the 11th, and as you can see, there were 17 people that came up and gave comments. You can read through those. And then actually I think we had three other people after the fact that contacted Tiffany either by email or calls that gave their input too. But I think it was very informative, and I think they thought we were on the right path and gave us some other food for thought, but I think it was very informative and really impressed with the turnout that we had. I want to thank Charlie and the staff and everybody who kind of gave a recap of where we're at and get everybody's input for the weather that it was like. It was impressive to see everybody show up. Obviously this is a big issue in this community and very important, and people really do care. Jenny, do you want to give a little comment on yours? Well, I would say one thing is that people really appreciated that it was done. You know, as we started this process with community engagement, we said we want to hear what people have to say in the community, so we did our six listening sessions. But we told each and every one of them we'd take back preliminary recommendations just to have their input. And I think it would have been a huge mistake had we not. Now, granted, the night wasn't the best. I ended up with an electric wire down in my backyard, so I was slow getting there. But it really, I mean, we heard from a lot of people at the center afterwards who couldn't come and wanted to have been there, and we referred them to the preliminary recommendations. So most of them have, I think it was positive that it was done, and I think that there's some people who may have gone in there with a more negative attitude that came out with a more positive. I want to thank you both and your committee for all the work that you've done and really being intentional about making sure that certain populations were always reached, that people had a voice to be heard, that you made lots of opportunity to do that. And so thank you all so much for the community engagement committee. Anybody else that was present that would like to have comment or from the notes? Is there any further conversation about the town hall meeting? I will just add that there is a recording of that meeting available on LexTV's YouTube channel. I know we distributed that to the task force members, but for anybody else in attendance, if they want to view that and not just rely on our summary, that is available. Great. Thank you, Jeff. All right, so we're going to get kind of into the meat of things now. So the review of task force recommendations. We're going to start first with a central intake location. That came up sort of at the end of last task force. I think most of us were in agreement that an intake or some fashion of an intake center was critical to the importance of delivery services both for providers and for people needing assistance, but there was some concern of location. You all will see probably in front of you, and we're going to put it up on the screen, there has been some conversations between committees and committee leaders about what different opportunities could look like to do an intake center. So if you all could take a minute and look at your notes, and then I'll open the floor for conversation. As folks are reading that, if I could add just a couple of points of background, just to note we've changed three things on that item, three key points. The first key point is that the intake center model will start as a mobile system, if you will. It will be homeless, for lack of a better word, when it first starts. And I think if we have a second, Jeff can explain what our vision is for that and how it would work. The other thing we changed is the item C, the clear assertion regarding the Versailles Road Campus. That's certainly for the task force to discuss. If you like that language, you don't like that language, I put that in there because that was kind of what we heard from some task force members and some committee members, but then also it came up in the town hall. So I added that to reflect that, but it's your decision ultimately whether you want to go there or not. And then finally, what it would end with is a goal towards finding a permanent home for that particular site, but the goal would be that it would not be on Versailles Road. So we can answer questions, or Jeff also has a really good sort of two-minute synopsis of what that mobile center would look like. So really as we kind of received the input about the concerns around the mixing of populations at the Versailles Road Campus and the potential impact to the community from specifically locating the intake center at the Versailles Road Campus, we tried to think about how we could still meet the needs of the system overall until there would be a permanent home for a resource like this. Knowing that a resource like the Versailles Road Campus is going to take probably two to three years for us to develop and open, I know that we would still face the current challenges that we have with the ease of navigation of our system. We also have a recommendation included in these draft recommendations that is specifically around community-based case management, as well as goals to improve the staff-to-client ratios at our existing shelters. So the ideal or proposal of a kind of community-based or mobile intake team, for the time being, would help us to improve access of navigation, would help to supplement the existing resources that are available for case management at shelters and day centers and other facilities, and finally could also serve as an opportunity for us to see what operators in our community might step up and be a good proposed operator for a future physical intake center by demonstrating the ability to do the actual case management work, focusing on intake and diversion primarily. Thank you, Jeff. Any other thoughts? Council Member Sheehan. I got a question. I have a question. How would a mobile intake center differ from what we already do with street outreach? Very good. So I think that one of the primary differences is it would not serve only unsheltered persons, but, for example, this could be a team of case managers that could go into our existing shelters, knowing that a lot of them have limited case management staff and the ratios are not ideal until we can right-size those. I know that those that are at shelter, that might not be on the streets or in encampments that would engage our street outreach team, would still have this additional avenue to connect with housing navigation supports. Okay, thank you. I'm just going to give my initial thoughts on this, but I would love to hear from everyone else. I'm concerned about a mobile intake model without a centralized location because I think that might be confusing for people who need to access that intake center if it's moving. So I have concerns about that because I think that's one of the problems we have right now is connecting people with resources. So I do feel like that needs to be something that we are recommending a solution for, and I'm not sure that a mobile unit would do that. I also would not like to remove the Versailles Road campus from the considerations. I think we can say, or another location, if someone wants to propose that, but I don't want to take that off the list as a possibility because we might have a service provider that thinks that they could do other things on their list and operate this intake center. And so if we have an operator that might be able to do that, I don't want to remove that as a possibility. That's just where I'm at, so I would like to hear from other people. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Jenny? Part of what Liz was saying, I agree with 100% as far as the mobility. I mean, the idea of central intake is that people know where to go, and I'd go to the question, is this going to be a 24-7 mobile unit? That's what a central intake is. I can see where Jeff's thinking with the idea of helping the shelters or wherever they are. We've got Lexington Rescue Mission, we've got New Life Day Center, we've got places that there could be mobile folks who go help. Lexington Rescue Mission pretty much has their own. New Life Day is working on it. As far as going into the shelters, are you talking about shelters taking people in for a little bit until the mobile unit can get to them? I mean, the problem we heard from the businesses, as Chuck can well say, and the folks out near I-75 is they needed a place to send them. It's not going to change anything. They're going to call us and we're going to say we're full. They're going to call Hope and maybe they can go. They're going to call Salvation Army and they'll be full. I mean, I'm just going with what we're doing. What we've been doing and what I've even seen today is overwhelming. We're doing the street survey. We've not seen as many people as we just have seen since 8 o'clock this morning. It's amazing. But there are four people across the way. I don't know if you all came in this way, in the front. There are four people across the street that are sitting on a park bench with all their stuff. And where could you send them? They can go to New Life until 4.30. But that was the point of central intake. But I am going to disagree with Liz on Bursell's Road. I think it's asking too much in the sense of I don't care if you put up walls, huge walls between the shelter that will be for families and children and the disabled. You're talking about 24-7 the people who have nowhere to go who can go in there and check in. Like empath. We know that. So I do think it needs to be someplace else. I don't think we take it off the table. I think we say this is the recommendation. And we are talking about a group continuing to try to work on some of that. I can't walk away and say we finished our work today because we haven't. But if we identify areas that we know we can go forth with, that makes sense. At least it does to me. But I think what you're talking about, Jeff, is great. I think the mobile case management is a fine thing. I think it needs to be out of the jail the first time and then come to different places. I mean there are a lot of places we could intercept. But that would not take the place of an empath for the people experiencing homelessness. And to be clear, my recommendation would be that this would be interim until we had a physical location. I'm not suggesting it replace movement towards a physical. I got that. But I don't even see, you know. Any other comments? Janice? Thank you. You're welcome. Well, I like the suggested revisions. Not because I necessarily am in love with the mobile unit. But because it separates it from the emergency shelter. The emergency shelter RFP can go forward. And I think there will be a lot more applicants if we don't lump the centralized intake, which is a much more complicated issue, to be quite honest, you know, in with it. So we can get the emergency shelter on the ground and operational while we continue to sort of problem solve and explore, you know, options for the centralized intake, which is very important. But it's a harder solution and it will take more time. Anyone else? Any other comments? I'll add. I do think that we should be moving forward with the pieces of this. So I don't necessarily think the intake center has to be put together with the shelter. And those can be RFP-ed out as separate. But I don't want to just completely close the door similar to having them in a co-located space. If somebody thinks they can do that. And I do, I think we have to also think about the scope of what we're doing here. I think we should be making recommendations on the ideal situation of what we want to see. And I think having like an intermediate step is good. But ultimately I think we should be firm on we think there should be a central intake center. So that's just kind of where I am. So I don't, I'm not totally dismissing the mobile intake model as an interim solution. But I do think the goal should be the centralized location. So it sounds a little bit to a degree like we're handling winter weather, right? We know winter weather is not the permanent solution. But we need something until we can build permanent shelter. So an interim solution, mobile, as good as it can be, gets us something while we figure it out. But am I hearing the pleasure of the group to have two recommendations, kind of two RFPs that you've got going forward, exploring the intake center as a permanent space and the emergency shelter? Or bringing those two together? I feel I'm hearing separate. But I just want to, for clarification for Charlie's group, what are we thinking? Sir, yes. Council Member Brown. I just got a question of clarity and I apologize. I just missed a few meetings. The way it's kind of being characterized to me is that the central intake, and I can kind of see it as working as a low barrier shelter. If somebody has nowhere to go and they're looking for services, if they go there and have a 24-hour time frame to be there, then I think, in essence, it will function like a low barrier shelter because then it seems like when we first started talking about the central intake, it sounded like a central location where folks could go and find resources, get direction, and go from there. But I think what it's kind of morphed into and what it sounds like is that they're going to be able to go there and they have 24 hours to be there. So, in essence, that does become a shelter, so to speak, and would need all the services that a shelter provides. So I don't know if we need to have a conversation about separating what a direction and an orientation to services are and then where a temporary staging setup or temporary shelter is. It just sounds like it seems like it's going to be harder for us to come to a decision on the intake if it's going to operate like a 24-hour shelter. I mean, I agree with Councilwoman Sheehan's original points that she had made regarding, one, you know, we talked about the Versailles Road campus. I know that we, in our initial recommendation, our initial phase, it has what we provided. But we also talked looking towards the future and possibly looking at the possibility or the feasibility of making that a campus. And in making that a campus, you may find opportunities to do things like an intake center or other type of housing, transitional housing, whatever it may be. So I definitely don't want to take Versailles Road off the table because I think, to Councilwoman Sheehan's point, a part of that is trying to figure out how can you make it work. Is there a way to separate the population, not maybe on that campus, but maybe it's through buildings, different buildings or something like that. So I think taking Versailles Road off the table, we should really think about that, not doing that. But on the other end, you're going to get into a space where if you do two different RFPs, are they going to start competing against each other with priorities? Which one is going to be more important? Is it going to be our intake center or is it going to be what we've recommended for the campus so far? I think we're just going to get to the space. And then also we're talking about new locations. The elephant in the room is that's the hardest thing to find is a location. So how long would that take? How hard would that be? How much pushback would you get? We're talking about pushback for the Versailles Road campus, but as soon as we start talking about another location or another area, what does that pushback look like and how are we going to mitigate and address those concerns that may be raised within those locations? So that's kind of the lens I'm thinking from. I said such important things. Okay. All right. I was just agreeing with people. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, so I think on the table, should we take it kind of point by point or do we want to say that Versailles Road is off the table for a future dilemma or for future decision of intake center or do we want to keep it with preference that it is not there but the possibility still is there's a possibility there? Well, isn't it correct that we've already approved the at least beginning formulation of an RFP for the emergency shelter? Yes. Debate on this could drag on. So I guess the question would be do we do that, do we continue to delay to resolve the issue of the centralized intake or do we move forward with the shelter and perhaps take out the will not be located but move forward with the rest of the revisions that are in this just to get things going as far as moving forward with the actual emergency shelter? Yeah. Yeah. Thoughts? Well, I think as this group, what we'd be doing, and Liz said it in one way, we keep it on the table, but at this point we're not recommending Versailles Road. I think that's going to be huge to a lot of people. And Charlie or Jeff, you're all's RFP is not including a central intake on that, is it? I have drafted something very initial, but really we would be looking to this body to determine how we proceed. Thank you. It does seem critical to me that the recommendation from this committee or this task force that we do prioritize an intake center. I guess we need guidance on how we present that to the city. Is there the possibility of leaving the location to the person applying for the RFP? I mean, I know that adds an extra barrier, but it could be a solution where we're not recommending a specific location, but recommending continuing this and releasing an RFP saying that we support the existence of this shelter and that will be part of the RFP process. I mean, I don't know. It's complicated. Without space, that makes it less appealing to apply for an RFP, but it doesn't make it impossible. Unless an existing nonprofit took it. I'm looking at you. I do think it is two separate RFPs, just to be clear. And I think for the centralized intake center, we could make it a question of the RFP. Do you have space to operate this or would you need help securing space? So then they answer that as a part of the RFP and it's something that whoever is taking on the implementation of these recommendations would be discussing with the applicants. I don't know if you can write it like that. We're recording this so we can verbiage that. And then move forward with the mobile knowing that it's temporary and interim. It's interesting what you said, Jenny, about out at the jails, but getting something going while we're finalizing a more permanent solution. Who does the mobile, though? I mean, I'm not clear on that. I mean, I'm clear on the emergency shelter. I'm not clear on who would do the mobile if we did it interim and where the money would come from. I'm going to pass that to the city. I mean, you'd have to do an RFP for that project where the money would come from. I mean, we're starting to get to the point where we're talking about probably year two, year three type of stuff because the funding is staggered and everything in the first year is probably going to be committed already. You know, I think you could clarify this language and say, without saying so explicitly it will not be located on the emergency shelter campus, you could just take that explicit statement out and just say that you're directing us to seek a site, an appropriate site for this location, if you're more comfortable with that language. I was just putting, I mean, literally that was written that way just to get you to lead to this discussion. So there's no advocacy here for that. Just let us know what you want to do. But is it a separate RFP just for the mobile piece as well, is that what you're saying, and the permanent? Yeah, and the tricky piece of that would be asking someone to design a program that's mobile and then five years in say, I need you to switch this to permanently located. Is that a whole new RFP? Because could it be the same agency even? Probably, but there's some variables there that you'd have to account for. I want some clarification on the mobility of this intake. Will it truly be mobile like a vehicle that goes to different areas, or will it just be individuals dispatched from places? What does that mobility look like? I think a lot of that is still to be determined. I think there's two major factors that I think for me would answer that. I think one is going to be the level of funding that we have available to put behind this recommendation. I think the other is probably going to be what the actual proposals that are received are. Liz's suggestion about things like to issue something like an RFP for a physical intake center and leave some space for proposers to say whether they have an existing facility that they could operate this from or if they need support in identifying a location. I would want to leave a little bit of flexibility in this for someone to design what they think they have the resources and the expertise to execute successfully. I would say at minimum they would need to go to locations like our shelters, our day centers, our outreach centers. But I also think there could be significant utility in making this something that also includes a mobile unit. I just know that that also would factor into cost. So a mobile unit would be more costly than just a case management team. But I think a lot of this is what this body wants to do to put resources behind the recommendation and also what a potential operator could do. I will say just as a... And you all have been in these meetings as well, but I think this could benefit so much of providers because it is true when somebody calls or a new life day center is closing at 4.30 and you need to find a location where that person should go and you have to begin that whole thing of do you fit for Arbor Youth, do you fit for Greenhouse 17, do you fit for the Hope Center? Who do you fit for? It's a little bit like the paramedicine. To be able to bring those services there, to be able to triage it, I do think could be tremendously helpful until we can figure out a place where we could just go, we're going to get you to blah-de-blah road and get to this building. But it is a whole lot of work by providers trying to piece it all together that I think could be really beneficial. Well, I think one thing, people already do that. That's being done every day. So my question is, this would be most beneficial for the community if it's off hours. If it's 9 to 5, as Dolly said, Monday through Friday, we've already got it. People can go to the rescue mission, they come to the center, they go to the Hope Center. That's not the problem. The problem are all those other hours, which there are more than 40. So if you want to do an RFP for mobile case management, that's been on the table for a while. They go different places. But it's not the same thing as central intake. A central intake is where can people go when there's no place where they can go when all the shelters are full. People know how to check that. We've got a fairly decent system of that. The biggest gap, evening, weekends, overnight. I commend you on the 9 to 5 reference very well. I was doing it. Well, I agree with you. I really do. I think that's perfectly said. Because I do think during business hours, we can usually kind of piece that together. It is those times. And I really think, because I just know the calls that we receive, I think it could be such a tremendous thing for law enforcement. It's 2 o'clock in the morning. I've got someone. I need to get them somewhere. Help me figure this out so that I can continue doing what I need to do to respond to things. But I want to make sure that this person is well. I agree with you. I think evenings and weekends could be tremendous. And I personally don't think it would be a good permanent solution. But I kind of like it for the interim, I guess, for what you were saying. And also, practically speaking, it is going to be overlapping with street outreach a significant amount. This is a lot of what the outreach teams are already doing, maybe not in a formal capacity. But I do think... So, you know, thinking about it in that sense, your real gap is after those outreach teams are in for the evening. So maybe that's just from 10 o'clock in the morning to, like, 8 o'clock or, you know, whatever hours on the weekend. But... So I think we long-term can look at that from a lot of different ways and could potentially, like, put together a plan that doesn't involve 24-hour coverage as long as that same service can be provided through the existing services, if that makes sense. I would agree that right now there is significant overlap with what outreach does. I think one thing I would make sure as part of the conversation, though, is sometimes I think that our outreach team is dealing with things that aren't typical of outreach teams in every community because we lack this kind of a resource. You know, ideally, an outreach team that is street outreach would be focused on unsheltered persons and wouldn't necessarily be providing case management or housing navigation or intake services to someone who's in a shelter, for example. And I do agree that there would be a lot of different ways to approach this. For example, if it was the will of this body, it could be that maybe the funding is for expansion of outreach to be 24-7. It could be separate from outreach and we adjust and align what the responsibilities of outreach are versus this team. Another way to approach it, and I don't want to speak for other divisions, would be to look at, you know, do we want to maybe provide some kind of additional housing-specific resources that would be paired with a team like Community Paramedicine. I think that's where the need to leave some flexibility in a potential RFP would be helpful. Any further discussion, or do you think we're at a place that we can make a recommendation to move forward of how we're including the Intake Center with this task force conversations? I think it's real important we include Central Intake Center. I do, too. I mean, that by itself. Okay. And even if it means, but I do think that what Jeff's been talking about, we've heard about this before, those mobile case managers. That's a great idea. But it might not be for the shelters. And, you know, it's not going to be the same as Central Intake. You'd have to figure that out. You know, they can't do the same things. And what they're going to do is be able to help them find permanent housing or find something, to find something quick. So, Jenny, how would you put that in here? Like, how would you list that? Because I know you've said we've been talking about that. So, where would you put that interim piece in the task force recommendation so that we make sure we stay captured with it? Is that great? I would say mobile, if you want to call it mobile, mobile case management. I would not call it mobile Central Intake because that is not clear and is not... And even mobile case management, there's a number folks can call and it may be the judge is calling, or maybe we're calling them, or maybe David's calling them, or maybe they're... the people across the street sitting there. Yeah. There'd be a text call. I need help. Yeah. So, I think, you know, I would say that. Okay. And that gives the flexibility, particularly whether it be to go out to the jail one day a week. They can figure that out once they get going. I think that the hot spots move around. The jail is such an overlooked place, I agree. I mean, yeah, it's a perfect place to try to do some intervention. Yeah. But nobody, you know... So, I think mobile case management. I don't think you call it Central Intake. Okay. Or Intake at all. You don't call it Intake at all. No, it's not Intake. Yeah. But keep the RFP for an intake center in the proposal. Absolutely. Okay. How do we feel about that as a group? Didn't we... I just had one question with the... Wait, sorry. Oh, sorry. I hope this isn't being picky. If we change it from intake to case management, does that change somebody's expected services and experience they walk into? Versus if it's intake, they know, okay, I'm going to get in and pointed to a case manager. Versus, I worry I don't want to set somebody up to be disappointed or frustrated with the staff at that location if they think I'm going to sit down and go through a whole case beginning. Is that too picky or is that relevant? I think it's relevant. Yeah. I would agree with that, only because to me case management means you really work with somebody to resolve a lot of problems to get them where they're going. Yeah. Yeah. But the second thing is that we have to remove the definitive part that it will not be located at Versailles Road, right, and make it more of an option but not immediate. It was a recommendation. Right, right. You said what we need to do to change it. That would be one thing. I always like response. It could be a response team, response unit, response or advocate. It could be, I hear what you say, with a connotation of case management. And I would like to say as far as the outreach teams, they are different. They can't be as intense. They're responding to things. So I don't think there's, you know, this is a recommendation that would add to what we currently have. Yeah. Yeah. Is there going to be... For the record, I think that is only a temporary answer. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. everything but I'm hearing that we want to make sure as a task force that we are moving forward with an intake center but that we are okay with an interim response. Language can be discussed but it is not an intake, it's not a mobile intake center but it might be a mobile response team unit something. I don't think so. I think that's two different things. No I do too, I was just listing that we want the task force, that's one thing but we want to keep in also another recommendation from this task force that in the interim that we would do mobile. I wasn't bunching them together. Is that good? All right. Commissioner Lanter does that give you what you're needing? Does what? I don't think you all made any decisions. No motion has been made. Is there a motion for the recommendations around intake center? Well I can make one motion that's simpler is that we revise the revised suggestions to say that the central intake center will not be located at the Vail for Sells Road campus at this time. Anyone would like to second? Hold on now I'm confused. So what the language that you just said, tell me that again. Well the current language is that it will not be located at the Vail for Sells Road campus that's in here. So I'm wanting to, if you have better language I'm very open to it, to take away the definitiveness of that statement and say that it will not be located at the Vail for Sells Road campus at this time and we'll look for options, other options, explore other options. I think that's still taking it off the Vail for Sells Road location so I would rather that say that we're going to send out an RFP for a centralized intake center and then we're going to ask them in the RFP if they have a place to put it already or if they need help finding a place to put it. Okay. Is that good? We were going to suggest that the original language of the recommendation, the only thing we changed was the statement in bold that says the central intake center will not be located on the Vail for Sells Road campus. If you just simply delete that sentence, it says establish a central intake and triage location in Lexington. So I think all you have to really do is just delete that and you do what you're trying to do. Yeah. Okay. So I'll make a motion to remove that centralized intake center will not be located on the Vail for Sells Road campus. So moved. Any discussion? I don't like it. All right. I don't think it will ever belong with families and children and the elderly and disabled. Now, you never can say never. What if that families and children and elderly and disabled turns into 18 through 55 year olds because we find out we don't need that other? Maybe we get them all, these case managers get them all in housing. Charlie builds all the affordable housing we need. So you never say never. But I do think it's important for the community to hear and I think you all heard it that night by three or four people. There are a lot more that will start, will fight the whole thing on Vail for Sells Road. Now I know they can't. I know the city owns it. I've lived with this too many years of putting things where people don't want us. It's that's just my thought and I'm sticking with that. I mean, I hate to sound like a stick in the mud, but I've lived through it too much. No. Thank you. So I do have a motion and I have a second. We've opened up anybody else conversation and we'll go before we go for a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. I guess I have to say no. You do. You do. All right. All right. The motion carries. All right. Do I need to do a separate one on the interim mobilesque plan? All right. So having the conversation, is there a motion regarding the interim until an intake center is created, a plan for the city? I move to accept the rest of this page as we just amended. All right. Wonderful. Any discussion? All those in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Wonderful. Can I move on to the next? All right. So we also wanted to have the conversation, and again, I don't want to spend a lot of time, but I want to spend the time that is necessary on defining accountability. We often have had the misfortune of often bringing this up a little bit at the end of the meeting, and I want to make sure that we have this conversation now as we talk about recommendations and RFPs for the shelter. So, Mr. Hall, I don't want to put you on a spot, but do you want to kick off that conversation? Because I know accountability is really important, but you think this task force needs to own that and have conversation around that. I kind of feel like the horse has left the gate. We're so far down the road now that I'm not sure how we're going to implement that. I think it should have started in the first meeting, talking about what accountability is going to look like. So I think you're going to just be restarting the whole project over. I appreciate the recommendations here about people returning to where they came from and us trying to be vigilant in doing that, but when you talk about providing services to people and not requiring them to go into treatment, requiring them to get some sort of a day job through the city's assistance, as we discussed, and none of that's written into here. Leaving the community is written into here, and I appreciate that, but I'm just going to say generally, as a non-service provider, but as a business owner in the community and a taxpayer in the community, I would have liked to have started that conversation much, much earlier. I'm glad that many of the colleagues here on this committee have mentioned that's important to them, but I think it may be too little too late unless you're ready to revisit that again or there's some secondary work of this group that's going to address that, but I'm afraid that we're probably not going to right-size our homeless situation with what we're doing. We're just creating more work for the NGOs and the Hope Center and all these other people because they're going to keep coming, and they're going to keep being an issue here, and the people that truly need the families, the disabled, the children that I'm particularly concerned about, I'm not quite sure how we're going to assist them. The folks that need to be held to account, I think all we're doing is finding another place to slot them in somewhere, and we're not asking them to do anything other than what they've been doing. So, I'll leave it at that. Say, if you think the time is right to have that discussion, I would love to hear from anybody here that's got some ideas about how to do that. I mean, just to be quite honest about it, I live across the street throughout the day from the Hope Center. I don't see a great level of accountability there. People are scattered around on the ground over there like Jonestown. There's laundry hanging out of trees and off the fences. There's people asleep laying on the side of the road. I mean, what kind of accountability is that? And that's an organization that's receiving a lot of money from the city every year, and that's the best they can do. So, I mean, I'm just going to be frank. If that's our expectation, then let's rock on. Let's keep doing it. Let's put some picnic tables out there and, you know, some horseshoe pits, although I think a lot of them would probably rather lay under a tree or hang their laundry up to dry. How intimidating is that people trying to come up Legacy Trail? The garbage, the filth, the people laying around like they got nothing better to do. And I just think we're just inviting more and more of that. So, I'll leave it at that. I think that's a city conversation. Do you want to continue to fund that kind of behavior? If you do, you can take my tax dollars and spend it on it, I guess. All I need to do is try to get new council members elected. Thank you. Thank you. I want to make sure that we've got space to talk about that a little bit. And I did skip over again the post-task force review recommendations, which I think can be also part of ongoing conversation of committee and follow-up work after this task force convenes. But for the service providers and for Council Member Beasley, you had a comment. I don't know if you have a response. I do. Mr. Hall, I appreciate you wanting to hold folks accountable. I prefer to teach people to fish rather than give them fish for free. But also, I think as a city, we're not interested in operating this facility. So, we could write it in the RFP, what we would like for the accountability to be. But I think whoever answers the RFP and builds this center or this homeless shelter will be who has to do that accountability piece. Does that make sense to you? Not exactly. That's just who's got it for me, honestly. I think if the city's going to have it on its property and in its community, you're going to have to set some standards of how it's going to be operated and who will operate it will have to agree to that. And I think we do that in the RFP part. Maybe. But that state that at this point in time, that there's going to be some stringent pieces put in place to try to rein this issue in. I mean, we started the first meeting talking about we're not getting it reined in. Correct? So, what have we done for the last several months to talk about changing the paradigm? We haven't. Go ahead, Jenny. I know you've got something you want to say. I'll say something, Lee. I get you, Lee. There are many things. We all know who do work with the population and you see them. You've got different human beings out there. So, yes, there are standards. There are rules. Everybody used to say we had no rules. We do. Hope Center's got all kinds of rules, too. We do have to hold people accountable and we do. And that's why you do end up seeing more people on the streets. They may get, their beds get taken. It's almost a joke now. People call me. Jeff will call and say, do we have a bed for somebody who's 60? As soon as this other person leaves, we will, you know. We've got a real numbers. I mean, we've got a lot of people. Accountability, I don't, I agree with you. If the city is putting out an RFP, they can put anything they want to in that RFP. You know, they can say they have to say prayers every morning. They have to go to confession once a week. Who knows? But the reality is people need hope. People do need opportunity. One of the things we're going to be doing is that pilot program about an opportunity type of sheltering. It's only going to be 20 people to start with, but it's getting them work. I will tell you, most of the people on the streets are not just a bunch of bums who want to lay on the ground and put their things up on the, their clothes on a tree. But they get stuck doing it because they're not options. So I see our job as trying to create options that give them dignity and respect. Because each one of them came from some place and some of them may not, you know, they may have only been here for three months. But this is home now. I think it's great that you're going to try to put a pilot program in place to identify what those gifts are that those people have. I don't see that that's happened up until now. And so I'm really pleased that you're, you're going to do that. You're going to do it a more forceful, direct, intentional way. And I think that's wonderful. I still think, and to be fair, while that's going on, regardless of the scenario where it's taken place, there needs to be strict, and I'm not, you know, I don't drive by the Catholic Action Center every day, but when I do, it's orderly. I see other providers in the community where it's not orderly. And let me say this, Lee, I just want to defend all of our brothers and sister providers. It's damn hard that you can do it, you can watch 24-7 and somebody can go out there and throw over a garbage can because they're mad. I mean, I'm going to back up and say one more thing about accountability and how we can impose it. We can't do it until we take care of mental health. We've kind of left the mental health, you know, we've got a lot of folks out there who do need more mental health. I think the judge would see that all the time. I would ask her to say what percentage of your people in front of you who end up in the courts are also struggling with mental health? I don't have a specific number, but I think that we all struggle with mental health just as severity is different for different people. Right. And it could be ongoing or it could be a moment in time. It could be caused by the offense. It could be what caused the offense, but we certainly need more services because we should not, you know, institutionalize or incarcerate, let me put it that way, those who are mentally ill without giving them some type of way back to stability. Just the last comment I'll make on this. I hope through our case management program going forward, and I know that there's a good bit of this that's already being done, but through my service as a board member on a dependency care organization board, what's become very clear to me, and I know a lot of you all understand this, that are providing these services, we need a preponderance of people that are helping folks deal with trauma because trauma is what in many instances has resulted in their dependence, their mental illness, their whatever the case may be. And I'm all for hiring people who, let me put it this way, as an employer, I'd rather hire from the treated group than the untreated group. Because guess what? If they're treated, I have through solid, dependable, purposeful employment an opportunity to keep them sober. Somebody who's never been treated, who's never dealt with a dependence, I'm kind of rolling the dice, right? Regardless of who they are or what their qualifications are. So I think that's part of accountability. Everybody's identified as having an issue, and we do our best to help them understand what that is. Because until that's uncovered, you're never going to have success with dependency treatment, with correcting behavior, with getting them to accept the fact that they need mental health care. And I think that's a big part of a judge, is just them accepting I need help. So I think, I don't want to belabor that, but I would appreciate continued discussion. I'd love to hear from other people in here about what their thoughts are about accountability. You know, everybody ought to keep their yard mowed and their weeds cut, and I don't feel any different about that in Lexington. We need to have service providers that have facilities that look like good things are going on there. Jan. Thank you. Thank you. Well, you know, I don't work at the Hope Center anymore, and I don't work at Eastern State Hospital, but I've worked there for a long time, and I'm with you. I like accountability. The problem is also, if you've got a person who, because of their mental illness, because they just don't care, they're not ready, and they don't comply, you try to work with them and get them to comply through the recovery programs, which have a lot of accountability. It's the easiest group to work with for accountability. But what do you do with those, and I know we're all open to suggestions from you or from anybody. What do you do with those people who won't comply and won't or can't? There's both. I think the question there is, what are you willing to do? As a provider, what are you willing to do with those people? It's just like a bad dog. If they keep biting and you allow them to continue to do that, what are you willing to do to correct that? Or a child you're disciplining, or anything of that standpoint. There has to be a willingness across this group to say, this as a community is what we feel we should do with non-compliant individuals we're providing services to. Well, if it was, I mean, we have these individuals that we all bat around because they get kicked out because they do this and that. It happens with everybody. But what are we willing to do as far as let them perhaps harm someone on the street or die on the street? Then you get held accountable for that as well. From my years at Eastern State, it sounds so easy to say, let's get somebody into treatment. But you know, there's a lot of laws that protect somebody. You have to be pretty violent to be able to force not only involuntary commitment, but especially medications. It's very hard to force medications. I'm all about trying to get people help. I would really want to go for stricter laws to get people help. But you are caught between a rock and a hard place. And so if there are ever suggestions for any of the providers that are here about what you do with this group who is unable or unwilling at that point to do something, and you not be held accountable for what happens to them, please provide that. Because I think most of them are willing to try anything that might have a positive outcome. I'm going to take one more comment. Council Member Sheehan, I think you've been, you sure? Okay. All right. Okay. Anyone else before we move on? I just have one piece. We sort of deal with accountability and things as well. I think also my piece is for the safety of the community. And you tend to have layers of accountability when people are kind of really at the bottom of things and homeless and on the street. Accountability to me then kind of falls on the program. The program needs to be available to kind of meet folks' needs. And then as they move up into programs, whether it's Jubilee Jobs or Job Skills or Stable Recovery or DVA, then you start adding more accountability when people kind of move through. The hard piece is adding accountability in that emergency homeless shelter. Because then the piece then be that they're asked to leave and then they're on the street, which is not what the community wants to happen at all. We want to make sure that the community is safe and that people are safe. And so I kind of move from kind of that Maslow's hierarchy of emergency needs of food, shelter, water, to okay, now we've got you grounded. Now we have some expectations. That first group is a difficult group to help all the time. But all right. So we're going to move, if you all are all right with it, to task force reviewing and approving of the task force recommendations. And we've kind of gone through those original ones, but I do want you to look at the top priorities. Yeah. I don't think that we have voted on diversion or the additional recommendations. And one of those is the case management. And I think that's one that we should vote on as a task force. As a task force? Yeah. Do you want to take that first? I think let's just go down the page. Okay. All right. So help me proceed this a little bit with this, Charlie. What do you need? So we have the top priorities, temporary, seasonal, shelter. I think we're all in agreement with that and you'll have had a chance to look at it. Is there any conversation regarding around temporary, seasonal, shelter? Do you need us to approve each piece? Our records show you have approved priority one, priority two, and now priority three. You would need to approve diversion and then the, I don't know how you would phrase it, the additional recommendations. That's kind of how they're grouped. Those two are the ones that remain. And then there's the new one that we skipped over about the committee. That's the final one. Okay. Let's start with diversion. I'm going to have you help me on that. I make a motion to accept the top priority number four for the language around diversion. So this is basically trying to keep people out of the homeless system to begin with. So prevention efforts. So moved. All those in favor? Any discussion? Any opposed? Thank you for that. All right, so moved. All right, now we're looking at, do you want us to go to the implementation review of the advisory? So the funding items on 13 or not, unless someone disagrees with me, I don't think those need to be adopted because they're listed as recommendations. So I think the only other thing you may want to adopt is the final section that is the additional recommendations for long-term implementation. And that's kind of the potpourri, for lack of a better word. It's just a little bit of everything. It's got the pet stuff. It's got the advocacy pieces. It's got that stuff in it. That's the stuff on page 14, 15, 16. Is there any comment or concern on the additional pieces that you all want to lift up? A minor revision on that, Jenny. If you want to look at page 14, item 7, that's the pilot project. Do you want us to revise that language because it specifically mentions using the fund to develop a pilot program? And I know you and I discussed that being privately financed. So we would need to make a very minor change on item 7. I think it would be how you say it, right, Charlie? That's where I say it again. You're talking about? Yeah, it says utilize the Innovative and Sustainable Solutions to Homelessness Fund. Do you want me to take that out and just say develop a pilot program? Okay. So we'll delete the reference to the fund. And just so everybody knows what's going on, Jenny got, I don't want to speak for you, Jenny, but she's obtained private funding for that pilot and will not need LFUCG funds. Did I say that right? Yeah. We have, you know, in trying to show that community will be involved and help support, what we did is we've gotten this funded through the community without utilizing those. But we still wanted to include it because it's a priority. Yeah, and we want, you know, the group will still get the results and all. It's just, it's not. We just wanted to pay for it, which is the best kind of program. So that's number 7, correct? Yep. So we're removing that because it's being done privately? Just the first sentence. You're keeping the item. You're just removing the language about using our funds to pay for it. Yes. So we started at develop. Correct. It would take out that first phrase. Yeah. Use the ISS fund. All right. Charlie, do we need a motion to do that? I don't, it's just a wording change. I'm no Robert's Rules of Order, but I think you're good. Okay. All right. I move to approve the additional recommendations as amended. Just to be safe. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Do I have a second? Any conversation? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Just need to do that last new one, the one about the committee. All right. So if you all would look at the back of the page that we handed out, the centralized intake on the back is an implementation review and advisory group. This came up from the last task force meeting as well. It's to talking about ongoing conversation and committee throughout. So if you could take a look. And if there's any conversation. Jenny, this was your idea. Do you want to give a little quick background on it? I'm back to just saying it's important to have the community involved. Yeah. We talked about it some. And not being part of the COC or the OP office because it's focused just on working with these recommendations and keeping them going and expanding what the recommendations have actually been. We're not going into other fields. Council Member Sheehan. I was one of the people that dissented on having another independent group. I feel that this should go through the COC instead of convening a whole new group to look at these issues. I think it should all be in the same place. Should the group decide that they want to establish this independent group, I would ask that we have representation from the COC within this body. I would maybe specify actually a representative from the HPI board so it's a little more specific. But I can do wider COC if that's what the group would like. I want to be amenable to change. But I do resist the idea of forming another group to do this. Thank you for your comments. Council Member Brown. I'm sorry. I think my question, I see the answer. This group would be housed in the commission's office. You would help to convene this group? Yeah, we would have Tiffany continue to staff it the way she has staffed this group. And that would be very intentional to keep it separate from OP so that the two don't get muddled or their roles get confused at all. And then the idea would be each time this group met, it would decide if it needed to continue meeting until whenever it felt like its work was done. Would this group also establish who the membership of the group would be? I know some are identified in it, but I would think that folks from public safety and I'm just thinking other entities may have a voice at the table. I think if you all want to suggest certain minimum groups you want to make sure are representative, we could incorporate that or we could just say relevant groups. I have no dog in that. However you all want to set it up, I'm fine with. What did you say? I'm fine with however you want to set it up. People who might be willing to volunteer to do it, because it's been a long road for a lot of folks out here. I don't think there's anything about excluding anybody, but it's not expecting people to continue. Yeah, we certainly didn't want to ask anybody to continue working on this for another year unless they just really want to do. Yeah, well I'm in support of this recommendation. I think there's opportunity for that group once the core group gets founded to maybe identify who else needs to be at the table, but I do see some value in this group. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Did you have something? No. Oh, okay. Yeah. And we need a motion to approve this because it's an add-on. Tyler? Oh, sorry. In the same lane, I think, you know, if it's like kind of getting a group, if it's going to, like for instance, if the location for Purcell's Road, if the surrounding community or neighborhood folks, if they're going to be added to that, and if we're going to look down that lanes of a kind of a, you know, information share, but then also an input space, I'll support as well. But I would want to also be intentional with who is at that table and that it should actually serve and be intentional to what's on this paper. So the challenges of the area, and I think it would be a great space. We talked about neighborhood agreements and different things. So if there's a space for community members or folks that may have concerns to be able to be kept informed and at that table, I think that would be good as well and advised. So with that intent, I'll be willing to support if that is the case. Any further discussion? I don't want to beat a dead horse, but since Mr. Hall was so passionate about it and we didn't include it in the recommendations in regards to, I guess, the way he would want to see it, but maybe this is an opportunity to maybe put some wording in about establishing criteria for accountability. For agencies and maybe even for clients. Here's the group. And I'm thinking of somewhere in B. Charlie, Commissioner, did you help draft the language of this recommendation? And I guess to what I just voiced about including maybe making some considerations or some recommendations about accountability. I think it would fit maybe under B somewhere in there. And since you're the wordsmith, I guess I'll give you a chance to do that. I think this is a way to continue or at least a codified way to continue having that conversation about accountability and opportunity. Council Member Beasley. Council Member Beasley. Okay. So what you'd like to see in this is how we're going to hold the provider of the emergency shelter for what happens there? No. What I took from some of the comments earlier was accountability for funding, for maybe even client activity. I don't think it's been defined yet. I think this group could have the opportunity to kind of define it because I think this group will be made up with folks that really know what the real challenges are and the real avenues to address those challenges. All right. Does that make sense? Yeah. So you don't want us now to put in what we think the accountability should be. You want us to say this group is going to decide what that accountability should be. This is one of the things that they're going to be charged with continuing to review and to look at. Okay. Yeah. Can I say that I wouldn't think the group would decide they might make further recommendation to the CLC and the OB board who put out the RFPs. Because you're talking about their funding. This group would just make recommendations. It's kind of expanding our recommendations. We could be recommending from now until 2030. So the idea is here are some things we didn't get to hone in on. So why don't we look at it a little more with this group, make the recommendations where it goes because you're talking about city money. I agree. Maybe I didn't state it that way but that's what this group would be doing. This group would be looking at potential other recommendations and opportunities. Would it be whoever responds to the RFP that it would be included in the RFP that there would be some accountability requirements for the organization plus the individuals receiving the services? I guess I'm confused. Mr. Hall, is that what you are interested in? Is that you want accountability from the people providing the services as well as those receiving the service? I think we should be able to have some degree of say in what our expectations would be since it's in this community. Even though it's being proudly funded. Sorry. We should have some expectations of what we'd like to see since it's in our community and serving our citizens hopefully. Yes, I'd like to say that we have that. I think your suggestion is well taken. Again, to Jenny's point, the OP office would be issuing RFPs and funding that's going to come from the OP office would be going through our HPI board. That's where I think this stuff gets muddied when we create an additional group. We have an advocacy issues and programs committee that could look at this that is a part of the HPI board. Anyone can join the continuum of care. This could be a committee of the continuum of care. That's where I think this group gets, it will get confusing for who is in charge of what. When we already have a group established that works on these issues and makes recommendations for the entire community. Again, it's open so anyone can join it. If we wanted to establish a committee underneath that that would do this work, I would be all for that. I think it's going to start to be confusing over the roles when then this group is going to give advisory opinions to OP and to the continuum of care and then be making recommendations on funding or how things should be used. I think it should go through the already established channels. Council Member Brown, did you have a comment? No, I think Council Member Gordon. I have a thought. I didn't think about it. I definitely see the intent and understand. Earlier in one of our recommendations we emphasize good neighbor agreements. That's kind of more so looking at the space, looking at our sales growth and knowing that there may be concerns from the surrounding communities. Maybe what is needed or maybe the discussion is a conversation related to another recommendation tied to some good neighbor policy. That could be related to new spaces or places or existing spaces. Within that we can highlight or talk about at least bare minimums. Another key piece tied to that could be looking to funding. If they're not abiding by this good neighbor policy, whatever is defined, then the city should then look at that funding source if the city is providing funding. Maybe that's a route to get to what we're trying to get to. That's kind of my thoughts. That's kind of what I'm thinking. We have a good neighbor agreement for the temporary season shelter. I think it's fair to say that if we're thinking about expanding and looking elsewhere, whether we're bringing on an intake center somewhere else or anything like that, that should be across the board. Maybe not just an agreement between one location, but for any entity that we're helping fund that provides unhoused services. Commissioner, in order to get funding for this, would they not have to participate in the ESR competition that we have? I wouldn't say they'd have to participate in ESR. They would have to participate in continuum of care meetings because we require that of anybody that receives our funding. ESR, it would probably be up to them whether they apply for that as an additional support when they initially built up the facility. ESR is more operating dollars, so they'd probably apply for that after things got up and running. Does that make sense? Yes. The funding that we're talking about in this is not... All the money we're putting in that's in here is capital. It's one time. It's get it up, get it built. Okay. Once that's done, they would probably come for ESR for operating dollars, but that wouldn't be for two to three years maybe. Okay. Thank you. Any other comment? I guess there's still a conversation about whether this is a separate group or whether it's under umbrella of HPI. I don't know if we've come to consensus. I was about to say, I'll make a motion to approve this recommendation inclusive of the language about accountability and this to be a separate group convened out of the commissioner's office. So moved. Do I have a second? I second. Any further conversation? Please. James, did you say we keep it as a separate group, not under? A separate group from OHPI convened out of the commissioner's office. I apologize. I was asking Jeff a question. Did you make a motion? I did. What was the motion? To approve this recommendation with the added language about accountability to be convened out of the commissioner's office as a separate group. Did you have a question? No. Any conversation? All those in favor? Do I have a second? Sorry. Do I have a second? I second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any of those opposed? We might need to do a hand count. All those in favor? Raise your hand. All those not in favor? All those opposed? Raise your hand. So I think the ayes have it. All right. Motion carries. All right. Commissioner Lanter, what else do you need from us to move forward with this? So I think you're largely complete. I think so too. With your work. We will take these. We will make the final adjustments and the final draft and send that out to everyone. Give you a little time to come back and tell us whether you think that's right or wrong before we do some public publishing of it just to make sure we get everything right. And then we will schedule. I will probably be contacting the council clerk as soon as tomorrow to try and get on the council agenda to present. Usually that's a month or two out. I don't know what y'all's calendars look like lately, but it's pretty full. Do we need a motion to move it from this task force to be in front of council and the mayor? It's kind of up to you. I mean, it may make things nice and clean if you just made a motion to say we've adopted our report and passed it on to the mayor. Because this is the mayor's task force, so technically you'd be passing it to the mayor and then she'd be presenting it to the council. All right. So I make a motion to move this out of the task force and put it in front of the council and the mayor. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. So many seconds. All those in favor? Aye. Any discussion? Any opposed? All right. We're handing it off. Now, I heard you just say do we need to meet again or will you be sending out the whole compact? It will just send it out through. I think let me send that out and then unless you all have some strong feeling about something that's in there and you want to reconvene, you're good. So is this mayor's task force come to a close for the most part? I think you need to do your public comment item in case there's anyone here. Yes. I don't know that we have anyone. Do we have a moment if anybody has any public comment, any conversation? Yes, sir. Can you come to the podium? Thank you. You've been waiting patiently. Thank you for joining us. I've never been to one of these. I don't know how this works. You have three minutes, so we're so glad you're here. Just for a little context, I personally have been through a lot of these systems already. I've come out of homelessness, addiction, and as of this month, I'm five years sober now. Congratulations. I've been through them for a while. It's not fun. I just have a few quick things on it I wanted to go over. The real timelines of recovery, the people who are actually doing the work coming out of recovery, the ones in treatment and counseling and long-term stabilization programs, are not failing. They're waiting. They're stalled in a system that has an entry point but no exit. Person earning the minimum wage, the $39,000 a year job is often described in Citi as someone who can afford a little over $1,100 in rent, but that number is built on the same kind of compressed optimism that distorts the public understanding of recovery. Just as recovery is not a 30-day countdown but a multi-year physiological rebuilding process, affordability is not a simple fraction of gross income but a lived reality shaped by what remains after deductions. What I'm trying to get to is there's no exit strategy with people that are already doing the work that needs to be done, that have already come off of the streets, that have already experienced homelessness. They're doing everything they can, but they can't get the better jobs because their records are holding them back. They're spending years in some of the places they have nowhere to go, and they're just being recycled back into the system again. I've seen a lot of people not make it. I've seen people go back and forth through it. Eventually, they'll get out and make it if they're lucky enough to find housing. There's just literally not enough affordable housing in Lexington to support the almost 80,000 that are earning under the $40,000 a year wages here. We're expected to double up or triple up just to afford a one or two-bedroom apartment. That's not conducive to somebody still in early treatment. Mixing people from early treatment with people in later stages of treatment creates a volatile environment. You can't just pick people off the street. I do agree with the triage center because you're trying to find the ones that need what type of treatment and where they need to go for treatment and keep everyone somewhat separated. I do agree with that because you can't just throw them all into the same room and expect them all to get along. You're going to need better security. You're going to need policing. You're going to need lots of professional counselors and help there to assist with that. I don't know what to do about it either. It's a very multifaceted problem. I just wanted to express that concern because with enough affordable housing at the other end of that, then the ones that are in treatment could get out and maybe provide some room for others to get in there. That's all I have. I so appreciate your comments and I almost wish you had gone first. You highlighted all the pieces we talked about. I think those things that we're always concerned about when we talk about diversion, keeping people out of homelessness, and then once people are homeless, keeping situations where they don't have to return with affordable housing and wraparound. Thank you so much for your comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? All right. I feel like we should be more gleeful. We are adjourned. Thank you all so much for your work and we will hear from Commissioner. If I could take a point of privilege and just thank Tiffany Mazden who has staffed us and done all the work. And to Jeff who's been my right hand through all this and does all the real work. Thank you all and thank all of you for your time. I know this has been a huge commitment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.