►
From YouTube: Shelter Better Task Force Meeting #9
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
We're
gonna
get
started
here.
We
have,
I
think,
most
of
the
folks
that
we're
expecting
today,
noting
that
dr
penny
beach
is
out
of
town
and
won't
be
joining
us,
but
sending
their
feedback
ahead
of
time.
Tammy
and
joe
are
both
out
sick
today
and
then,
if
annie
and
serena
end
up
joining
us,
we'll
be
excited
to
welcome
them,
and
then
online
we're
expecting.
A
Hillary
is
already
online
and
then
b
black
and
rebecca
lemon
should
both
be
joining
us
any
second,
so
we're
going
to
get
started
just
because
we
have
a
lot
to
move
through,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
enough
time,
notably
I'll,
be
your
facilitator.
Today,
instead
of
jen
jen
is
out
of
town
and
in
terms
of
urgency,
of
just
moving
this
task
force
to
a
conclusion.
We
thought
it
would
be
best
to
set
this
time
that
seemed
to
work
for
a
majority
of
people
move
through
the
finalization
of
the
report.
A
So
I
worked
with
jen
yesterday,
walked
through
all
the
feedback,
how
we
incorporated
it
and
then
came
up
with
a
facilitation
plan
for
today,
and
she
just
wanted
me
to
pass
along
to
you
a
reiteration
of
her
thanks
for
participating
and
helping
make
this
process.
Although
challenging
like
pretty
easy
for
her
in
terms
of
how
you
all
interacted
with
her
we'll
start
today
with
just
a
quick
hello
from
courtney,
and
then
the
plan
is
just
moving
through
the
report.
A
B
Good
morning,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
last
meeting
I
think
andrew
just
made
the
joke
that
that
would
be
a
good
title
to
a
memoir
and
I
would
agree.
Thank
you
for
your
patience.
We
come
before
you
with
the
last
meeting
that
was
requested
and
supported
by
the
task
force.
So
casey
is
gonna.
Do
his
best
to
work
us
through
all
of
the
feedback
we
got
and
then
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
I'll
just
close
with
next
steps
and
to
try
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Perfect
so
the
first
thing
that
we're
going
to
do
is
you
all,
have
a
copy
of
the
report.
That
is
the
first
document
that
you
have
in
front
of
you.
This
is
yours
to
take
with
you
after
today,
we'll
be
working
on
incorporating
any
additional
edits
that
come
through
this
group's
conversation
and
direct
consensus
from
the
group,
as
folks
have
already
had
their
opportunity
to
provide
input
and
individual
feedback
on
their
report,
and
then
it
will
be
put
into
like
city
of
boise
branding.
A
So
this
is
just
my
very
sad
word
document
version
of
it
this
afternoon.
The
community
engagement
team
will
put
it
I'm
assuming
into
nice,
colors
and
fonts
that
match
the
city
branding
guidelines,
and
then
you
have
three
other
documents
in
front
of
you
that
I
think,
should
help
us
move
through
the
conversation
and
I'll
just
name
what
those
are
before
we
get
into
it.
A
The
first
one
is
what
I'm
calling
tier
one
input
and
that's
where
we'll
end
up
starting
tier
one
input
is
here
in
this
document
because
it
from
my
standpoint,
it
was
really
easy
to
incorporate
because
it
fell
into
one
of
three
categories:
either
one.
It
was
easy
to
accept
and
adjust
the
language,
because
there
was
both
consensus
from
the
group
and
alignment
with
our
best
practices.
So
if
any
of
those
comments
left
kind
of
that
criteria,
they
were
immediately
incorporated
the
then
there
was
the
second
bucket,
which
is
reject
that
it
lacked
a
group
consensus.
A
It
was
stemming
more
from
an
individual
comment,
as
opposed
to
a
group
conversation
that
occurred,
and
it
lacked
alignment
with
best
practices
or
a
stuck.
So
this
bucket
was
also
incredibly
easy.
Where
we
had
competing
ideas
on
two
sides,
it
became
clear
that
we
wouldn't
get
to
group
consensus
and
therefore,
what
we
put
into
the
report
was
that
we
did
not
reach
consensus
and
I
think,
if
you'll
recarl,
the
mayor
said
that
she
didn't
necessarily
need
consensus
from
this
group,
but
just
a
representation
of
what
this
group's
thinking
was.
A
So
we'll
take
some
time
with
this,
but
the
tier
one
feedback.
What
you'll
see
we'll
walk
through
that
in
a
second
and
then
there
are
two
larger
conversations
that
I
thought
we
could
have
today
where
it
really
seemed
like.
We
have
to
get
more
closer
to
consensus
in
terms
of
how
we're
accurately
and
adequately
representing
the
feelings
of
this
group.
A
But
the
first
thing
that
I'd
like
to
do
is
move
through
the
tier
one
comments,
and
I
will
note
that
we
only
had
four
individuals
give
feedback
in
the
time
that
we
asked
for
that
feedback,
and
I
would
say
that
two
of
those
individuals
provided
really
minimal
feedback,
meaning
less
than
two
comments
and
the
other
two
individuals
provided
either
a
letter
corresponding
to
the
report.
That
was
pointing
to
some
larger
questions
or
really
extensive
feedback.
A
So
while
this
may
look
like
this
is
the
feedback
that
we
got
from
the
entire
task
force
know
that
it
was
really
driven
by
a
couple
of
folks,
and
I
just
want
to
name
that,
so
it's
really
clear
to
you
all
like
what
type
of
what
level
of
feedback
we're
talking
about
when
it
comes
to
the
group
conversation
so
to
move
through
tier
one.
What
I'm
asking
you
all
to
do.
A
Knowing
that
the
framework
for
this
is,
we
believe
that
they
are
easier
to
incorporate.
The
formatting
is
what
was
the
general
set
of
comments
or
individual
comments,
that
middle
column
is,
then
what
are
our
incorporations
notes?
Which
will
give
you
not
only?
What
did
we
do
to
incorporate
it,
but
exactly
where,
in
the
report
we
incorporated
that
and
then
the
final
column
is
added
or
adjusted
language,
and
so
we
put
an
underline
there
any
of
the
language
that
we
changed
to
adjust
to
that
comment
and
if
it
was
adding
an
entirely
new
section.
A
We
put
add
new
section.
So
I'm
just
going
to
ask
you
to
take
some
time
now
to
work
through
this
identifying
explicitly
like
where
you
have
outstanding
questions
or
where
this
can
like
cause
like
a
larger
conversation
that
you
want
to
have
with
the
group.
So
five
ten
minutes
doing
that
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
questions
that
you'll
have.
A
We'll
get
started
here,
just
as
the
majority
of
people
are
done.
So
the
question
is:
what
do
you
all
have,
as
you
reviewed
this
tier
one
input
either
as
questions
concerns,
things
that
don't
feel
like
they're
representative
of
the
conversations
you've
been
having.
D
Thank
you
just
looking
at
the
final
recommendation
for
report
feedback.
I
think
it's
an
appendix
there's
one
word
that
I'm
I
questionably,
because
we
never
voted
or
took
any
direct
indications,
but
in
the
first
sentence
says
there
was
broad
interest
in
the
task
force
members
to
have
interface,
sanctuary,
evaluate
visibility
of
operating
multi-site,
shelters
and
system.
A
Perfect
and
then
we
have
so
right
now,
just
as
aranda
we're
just
in
this
segment
tier
one,
because
I'm
trying
to
move
past
what
felt
like
they
were
easy
to
incorporate.
Based
on
the
group
conversation
you
all
have
had
and
and
fielding
questions
about,
this
go
ahead
jody
and
then
I
saw
elaine
and
then,
if
other
folks
want
to
get
on,
just
send
me
your
hand.
So
I
can
start
keeping
a
stack.
E
We're
doing
intake
right
now
for
the
covet
hotel
and
my
other
staff
member
is
sick
today.
So
if
I'm
walking
out
it's
to
manage
the
covet
intakes,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
F
Thanks
casey,
just
a
note
about
one
word:
I
just
want
to
clarify
what
this
means
and
it
would
be
on
the
conditional
use
permit
language
and
the
last
sentence
saying
the
city
of
boise
should
take
additional
steps,
alongside
conditional
use
permits
for
shelters,
to
provide
robust
support
with
public
engagement,
and
I
guess
that
to
me
it's
a
little
unclear
what
it
is
that
we
expect
the
shelters
to
provide
robust
support
for
if
it's,
the
accountability
to
the
conditions.
We
ought
to
just
say
that.
A
Yeah,
no
that's
great,
so
I
can
do
some
clarifying
of
language
and
the
intention
there
was.
There
were
two
additional
comments
from
folks
about.
We
need
to
understand
the
conditional
use
permit
process.
So
the
intention
of
that
language
is
to
say
that
the
city
of
boise
and
city
staff,
in
particular,
should
take
additional
steps
when
it
comes
to
conditional
use
permits
for
shelters
to
support
more
robust
public
engagement
processes.
A
So
I'll
do
some
clarifying
to
make
it
make
it
clear
this
isn't
about
what
the
shelters
need
to
do
in
that
process,
because
that's
pretty
clearly
defined
through
the
community
board.
Engagement
part
that
we
have
and
the
cup
process
for
community
engagement
and
make
it
clear
that
this
is
the
city
of
boise's
role.
G
Casey
yeah.
Thank
you.
I
think
that
you
did
a
good
job
of
laying
out
the
different
areas
of
feedback
and
making
the
changes.
I
have
to
admit.
I
got
a
little
bit
lost,
trying
to
go
from
my
notes
on
the
first
version
of
the
final
report
to
this
next
version,
where
there
were
no
page
numbers
and
no
sub
numbers
in
terms
of
you
know
the
different
categories,
the
different
groupings.
G
I
did
want
to
make
sure
that
one
change,
which
I
think
is
a
pretty
important
change
and
I
don't
believe
I
saw
it
changed
in
the
updated
version
and
that
was
under
the
housing
first
approach,
where
we
talk
about
the
duration
of
stay
should
not
be
limited.
I
believe
that
word
should
have
been.
Duration
of
stay
should
not
be
unlimited.
G
A
I
didn't
highlight
it
as
the
feedback
we
received
after
the
fact,
but
the
way
that
that
is
under
shelter,
best
practices
under
the
housing
approach,
housing
first
approach,
which
I'm
now
recognizing
there
is
no
page
numbers
nor
categorization
of
these.
The
second
bullet
point
under
that
says,
duration
of
stay
should
not
be
limited.
An
effective
shelter
achieves
shorter
lengths
of
stay
where
households
exit
it
to
permanent
housing.
H
A
What
we
made
more
clear
that
it
should
not
be
limited
and
then
still
tie,
that
to
the
concept
of
the
role
of
housing
or
the
role
of
shelter,
is
to
achieve
exits
to
permanent
housing
and
then
the
third
bullet
point.
There
also
says
that
the
role
of
shelter
and
housing
are
distinct
and
should
remain
distinct,
so
we
kind
of
attacked
it
in
two
different
ways.
Does
that
mean
the
intention
of
the
edit
that
you
wanted
to
see.
G
The
other
thing
is
I
I
was
uncomfortable
with,
and
I
liked
some
of
what,
where
I
thought
the
recommended
language
was
going
and
that
has
to
do
with
the
300
feet,
that's
being
considered
with
the
conditional
use
permit,
but
I
guess
that
is
something
that
we
can
bring
forward
at
the
conditional
use
permit
planning
process.
If
we
don't
agree
with
that,
so
I'll
leave
that
for
another
day,
yeah.
G
Restrictive,
especially
if
we're
going
to
start
trying
to
find
siding
for
other
smaller
shelters
to
help
offload
some
of
the
some
of
the
populations
that
we've
talked
about,
that
need
more
supportive
housing.
A
G
I
thought
the
the
premise
was
that
an
emergency
shelter
should
should,
in
best
practice,
should
not
be
unlimited
length
of
stay,
because
the
whole
idea
is
that
we
are
helping
individuals
be
housed,
we're
working
actively
to
help
get
them
housed
now,
unlimited
still
or
limited
yeah
unlimited
still
doesn't
mean
that
it's
that
you
have
any
set
date
on
it.
We
haven't
said
it
should
be
limited
to
x
amount
of
time,
but
I
just
thought
that
was
the
tenor
of
what
the
intent
was.
A
E
So
I
guess
my
question
is
because,
in
best
practices
for
the
housing
first
shelter
approach,
what
they're
asking
for
us
is
that
there's
no
time
out,
meaning
that
in
18
days,
if
you've
not
engaged
in
programming,
you
must
leave
our
facilities.
So
I
think
the
two
are
different.
I
think
what
b
is
trying
to
say
is
that
best
practices
for
us
is
to
prioritize
housing
as
soon
as
possible,
which
we
do
by
connecting
with
catch
for
any
intake
immediately
to
get
them
into
the
housing
process.
I
think
those
are
two
different
ideas.
A
E
J
That
was
really
this
is
jet
with
outreach.
That
was
really
my
point
too,
that
I
mean
there's
the
housing
first
philosophy
that
it's
not
a
permanent
solution,
but
then
we
also
have
to
deal
with
the
reality
that
set
time
limits
can
be
really
damaging
to
our
folks,
especially
in
this
housing
market.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
take
that.
I
think
that
that
is
clear
to
me
and
I'm
going
to
come
back
or
I
will
incorporate
the
language
that
is
specifically
on
industry
language,
which
is
about
not
having
a
timeout
and
have
that
concept
incorporated
as
a
focus
as
opposed
to
focusing
on
limited
or
unlimited.
Does
that
sound
okay
to
folks
and
b.
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
think
that
does
clarify
it,
because
I
think
there's
a
difference.
I
guess
I
was
trying
to
pay
attention
to
what
I
hear
the
neighbors
saying
and,
at
the
same
time
incorporate
because
you're
absolutely
right.
If
we
are
an
effective
shelter,
we
are
achieving
shorter
lengths
of
stay.
A
A
So
it's
clear
to
me
we're
not
going
to
get
consensus
on
that,
and
so
the
language
and
the
report
reflects
the
attitudes
of
different
task
force
members
and
what
they've
voiced
and
that
we
did
not
reach
consensus
there,
and
so
that's
kind
of
why
it's
on
this
list.
I
don't
think
it's
worth
spending
a
lot
more
time,
because
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
move
along
that
spectrum
of
opinion.
A
Yeah,
of
course,
and
then
I
would
also
know
that
on
that,
and
as
it
relates
to
the
conditional
use
permit,
there
was
like
also
a
desire
in
the
feedback
to
say
like
these
are
separate
processes
and
that
the
one
was
not
influenced
by
the
other,
or
I
think
in
the
staging
of
things
the
conditional
use
or
the
code
rewrite
was
not
influenced
by
this
process,
and
so
we
inserted
additional
language,
which
you
all
see
here.
That
says
that
process
was
not
influenced
by
this,
and
this
process
was
influenced
by
that.
K
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
coordinated
entry
process.
I
think
that
the
recommendation
to
have
an
off-site
coordinated
entry
could
allay
some
neighborhood
concerns
about
a
overflow
of
people
seeking
shelter
for
whom
there's
no
space.
In
that
shelter
and
the
response
here
says
it's
not
client
focused
or
person-first,
but
in
my
view
the
coordinate
and
entry
system
should
be
engaging
holistically
and
then
directing
people
to
the
appropriate
shelter.
So
they
don't
have
to
shop
around
town
looking
for
a
space
themselves.
So
I'm
a
little
confused
by
that
rejection.
A
Yeah,
so
I
can
speak
to
that
and
then
I'm
going
to
toss
it
back
to
the
group.
So
we
incorporated
the
coordinated
entry
process,
because
it
is
clear
that
in
the
best
practices
from
our
folks,
the
interfaith
talked
about
and
that
the
national
alliance
to
end
homelessness,
that
there
should
be
some
type
of
prioritization
that
prevents
a
first-come,
first-served
business
model
or
entry
model
that
allows
us
to
make
sure
that
we
are
serving
the
most
vulnerable
members
or
guests
that
need
access
to
shelter.
A
The
off
site
is
was
first
unclear.
I
think,
because
I
don't
know
off-site
means
who
would
take
this
on.
So
I
think
I
saw
stephanie's
hand
go
up
and
she'll
definitely
talk
about
that.
But
what
we're
talking
about
client-centered
is:
if
someone
shows
up
at
your
door
because
they've
heard,
which
is
oftentimes,
how
people
show
up.
C
A
Emergency
shelters
and
then
you
say:
well,
no,
you
have
to
go
over
to
this
other
place
and
then
they'll.
Let
you
know
if
you
can
come
back,
it's
an
unnecessarily
unnecessary
step.
That's
not
centering
the
person
at
your
door,
that's
accessing
a
night
by
night
crisis
resource,
but
it's
telling
them
that
they
have
to
follow
a
process
that
is
different
and
then
it
creates
extra
steps
and
that's
part
of
like
what
is
the
trauma-informed
process
that
our
path
home
tries
to
move
through.
A
Is
that
you
try
to
meet
people
with
service
right
when
they
show
up
at
your
door
and
that
you
don't
force
them
to
move
from
one
place
to
another.
If
it's
not
immediately
necessary
and
you
reduce
the
number
of
times
that
they're
storytelling,
so
they
come
and
tell
a
story
at
your
door
and
then
you
send
them
somewhere
else
to
tell
a
story,
and
then
they
end
up
coming
back.
A
I
Sure
I'm
stephanie
with
catch
and
we
house
the
coordinated
entry
location,
and
I
think
this
is
probably
just
a
nuanced
wording.
That
is
the
issue
here,
but
yeah
so
coordinated
entry
currently
is
not
24
hours
and
365
days
a
year,
so
it's
only
open
from
like
10
to
3
30.
I
think
right
now
or
four.
I
So
if
someone
experienced
homelessness
and
needed
to
access
a
shelter
after
our
business
hours,
there
wouldn't
be
a
place
for
them
to
go.
So
I
think,
as
far
as
like,
if
we're
saying
it
has
to
be
through
the
coordinated
entry
system,
that
probably
it
does
not
functionally
work.
However,
the
shelters
do
do
coordinated
entry
amongst
themselves
so
like
if
someone
shows
up
at
the
mission
and
they're
full
they'll
call
jody
and
vice
versa,
nwca.
So
there
is
a
coordinated
access
process
like
when
someone
shows
up
at
a
shelter.
I
If
there's
not
space,
all
of
the
shelters
do
try
to
navigate
that
together.
It
just
doesn't
happen
at
the
actual
coordinated
entry
site.
So
I
think
it's
just
like
nuanced
phrasing
and
I
think
that
really
the
heart
of
what
you're
trying
to
get
at
does
happen.
It
just
happens
in
a
different
place.
A
Oh
yeah,
the
actual
language.
Sorry
again,
this
would
have
been
helpful
for
roman
numerals
or
something
is
under
shelter,
better
practices,
low
barrier
and
it's
the
last
bullet
point,
and
it
says
shelter
adopts
clear,
coordinated
entry
process
for
emergency
shelter
that
prioritizes
households
with
the
most
need
and
prevents
first-come,
first-served
access
to
shelter,
and
I
think
the
request
was
add
that
that
process
necessitated
occurring
off
off-site
at
some
other
location
that
wasn't
identified
and
that
that
process
be
the
singular
place
where
shelter
entry
happens.
A
F
F
To
that,
then
I
would
say
I
agree
that
nuancing
this
language
a
little
bit
to
say
yes,
every
shelter
should
have
some
process
for
entry
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
should
all
be
part
of
the
coordinated
entry
system
right
and
I
I'm
not
going
to
wordsmith
it.
But
I
think
that's
the
intention,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,.
A
A
B
Casey,
I
think
it
might
be
missing
the
value
proposition,
which
is
to
ensure
that
no
shelter
is
overwhelmed
right.
I
think
to
katie's
point
that
the
concern
of
the
neighborhood
is
the
cause
of
not
having
coordinated
entry,
so
I
think
I
think,
with
that
addition
we're
okay,
but
we
lost
the
so
that
one
shelter
isn't
overwhelmed,
which
would
be
obvious
to
people
who
do
this
every
day,
but
not
necessarily
someone
just
reading
the
report.
For
the
first
time.
J
This
recommendation
may
have
already
been
covered,
but
it's
just
the
language.
Coordinated
entry
is
a
specific
function
in
our
continuum
of
care.
So
maybe
we
could
call
let
this
triage
process
at
the
shelter
something
different
to
avoid
that
confusion.
E
E
E
K
K
So
my
understanding
was
that
that
number
would
then
you
know
sometimes
direct
to
jesse
tree
and
sometimes
direct
to
shelter,
and
I
do
understand
the
comment
about
24-hour
access,
but
it
seems
like
that
number
could
then
be
routed
to
a
shelter
desk
if
shelters
are,
are
open,
24
7
and
they
could
be
managing
that
for
overnight
calls.
K
I
just
continue
to
be
concerned
that
that,
if
you,
if
you're
just
expected
to
hear
of
a
shelter
and
go
knock
on
that
specific
door,
that
seems
like
an
added
level
of
of
potential
for
overcrowding
of
one
specific
shelter
in
the
system.
Yeah.
A
Okay,
that's
helpful,
I
feel
like
I
have
what
I
need
from
all
of
you
to
write.
What
I
hear
is
consensus
language
around
this,
so
I'm
gonna
we're
gonna
land
that
plane
there
and
then
is
there
anything
else
in
this
document
that
folks
want
to
talk
about,
knowing
that
we
have
two
other
conversations,
one
which
is
on
multi-site
and
one
which
is
on
the
timeline
for
engagement,
which
both
have
tension
points
around
them.
A
Great
so
I'll
stay
after
today.
If
anyone
wants
to
have
an
additional
discussion
about
things
that
are
here
one-on-one,
but
seeing
general
group
consensus
being
that
this
looks
pretty
clearly
representative,
I'm
feeling
really
good
about
it.
So
we're
going
to
move
to
the
next
thing,
and
this
is
where
andy's
been
waiting
for
the
multi-site.
A
So
I
pulled
this
out
because
there
is
a
larger
conversation
to
have
here,
and
so
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
read
this
quickly
and
the
question
I'm
going
to
ask
you
at
the
end
is:
are
we
adequately
covering
the
group
conversation
here?
There
has
been
a
conversation
about
multi-site
from
the
first
day,
if
any
of
you
recall,
in
a
couple
of
opening
comments,
a
desire
to
move
through
this
process.
A
This
language
is
our
best
attempt
to
capture
how
that
conversation
was
expressed
from
some
task
force
members,
how
that
conversation
was
addressed
through
presentations
from
our
national
experts
from
the
emergency
shelter
operator
that
this
task
force
was
developed
around
and
then,
where
we
landed
on
that.
So
I'm
gonna
ask
folks
to
take
a
minute
to
read
this
and
then
answering
the
question:
did
we
adequately
cover.
B
Casey,
I
just
I
just
have
a
flag,
and
I
I
don't
know
if
this
rings.
True
to
folks
the
term
multi-site
seems
to
mean
many
different
things
to
many
different
people,
so
it
would
at
least
be
helpful
for
me
casey
to
for
you
to
define
it
in
in
the
way
you
believe
this
represents,
because
I've
heard
it
I've
heard
it
referred
to
and
it's
clear
there's
not
a
common
definition
and
or
use
of
this
term.
B
A
Yeah,
I
would
love
to
do
that,
and
that
is
part
of
the
problem.
Is
that
it's
not
clear,
and
so
the
last
paragraph
here
addresses
that
in
that
it
remains
unclear
to
us
what
task
force
members
mean
when
they
reference
it,
because
they
could
mean,
as
many
have
directly
meant,
and
particularly,
I
think,
in
tom
and
annie's
presentation
to
jody
called
on
interfaith
sanctuary,
to
re-evaluate
this
model
and
in
that
instance,
a
multi-site
shelter
would
be
a
single
operator
operating
multi-sites
that
are
divided
in
some
way
and
then
there
is
a
other
thread
of
multi-site.
A
That
is,
I
don't
care
who's
operating
it,
but
there
should
just
be
smaller
shelters,
and
that
is
my
definition
of
multi-site
and
it's
unclear
who
the
shelter
operator
is
in
that
instance,
because
it's
clearly
not
interface
sanctuary
based
on
their
organizational
standpoint
on
operation
of
multi-site
shelters.
And
so
then
I
would
have
like
a
thousand
follow-up
questions
on
like
the
who,
the
how
and
the
why.
F
Casey,
I
think
I
heard
an
undercurrent
in
some
of
the
conversations
around
multi-site
and
if
I'm
wrong,
please
everyone
correct
me
that
it
also
was
looking
at
the
potential
to
serve
various
kinds
of
sheltered
guests
at
one
site
and
would
it
make
more
sense
to
serve
them
in
separate
or
disaggregated
facilities.
Some
way
and
like
I
say
that,
because
it's
so
unclear
what
this
means
I
may
be
wrong,
but
that's
the
other
thing
under
current.
I.
A
F
A
No
that's
a
great
point
that
was
not
included,
and
I
will
include
that
because
now
that
you're
saying
that
that
is
clearly
part
of
people's
motivation
in
particular,
is
like.
How
do
you
bifurcate
populations
among
specific
needs
to
create
shelter,
environments
that
are
exclusive
to
those
populations?
So
I'll
add
that
node
in
here
then
I
saw
tom
and
I
know
andy's
on.
A
Yes,
if
sorry
I'll,
don't
comment
after
that:
okay
yeah!
So
let's
pause
so
that
folks
have
the
time
to
just
make
sure
that
you've
reviewed.
H
So
this
is
tom
from
sunset,
so
we've
talked
about
this.
We've
mentioned
this
a
couple
times.
Zoning
the
zoning
rewrite
and
zoning
is
a
separate
issue.
Then
we
don't
want
to
kind
of
conflict
things.
But
to
me
this,
like
the
multi-site
potential
is
it
is
part
of
that
conversation
because
the
way
I
I
understand
zoning
right
now
in
boise,
it
doesn't
matter
if
we
want
to
have
multi-site
potential,
it's
impossible
to
do
it
right
now
and
the
way
that
the
zoning
rewrite
is
going
is
making
it
harder.
H
So
to
me
it's
almost
well.
I
I
personally
would
like
to
see
a
multi-site
and
a
lot
of
the
feedback
I
get
from
a
lot
of
people
are.
What
that
definition
definition
is.
Is
you
have
that
conversation
too?
It
doesn't
matter
at
this
point
because
it's
basically
impossible.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
make
that
note
on
this
paper,
but
I'll
try
to
find
a
way
to
reference
that
as
it's
connected
to
the
zoning
code,
rewrite
because
we
do
have
some
language
in
there
about
how
the
city
of
boise
should
approach
that
zoning
rewrite.
And
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
it's
not
just
about
the
residential
buffers.
But
it's
also
about
how
that
zoning
codes
enables
alternatives
for
shelter,
including
smaller
sites,
to
be
cited
in
different
land
spaces.
H
D
Thank
you.
I
was
just
questioning
the
word
broad
and
interest
there.
There
was
well
articulated
interest
and
even
you
know,
support
from
a
couple
of
task
force,
members
that
I
heard
and
we
never
took
a
vote.
I
don't,
I
didn't
hear
it
from
a
lot
of
people.
The
ones
I
did
here
did
a
nice
job,
but
I
don't
want
to
convey
the
idea
that
this
was
a
broad
interest
across
the
task
force.
D
A
A
D
Yeah
this
is
multi-site
for
interfaith.
I
think.
For
instance,
council
member
clegg
had
talked
about
something
that
could
be
a
different
model
of
many
sites,
but
this
particular
I'm
just
referencing
interfaith
operating
multi-site.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
casey.
I
think
that
clarifying,
because
I
think
the
two
multi-sites
are
very
distinct
and
the
multi-site
that
I
believe
was
at
the
heart
of
the
comments
of
this
group,
had
to
do
with
emergency
shelter
being
smaller
in
multiple
sites
across
the
city
versus
when
I
I
think
the
other
version
of
multi-site
is
that
we
have
different
sites
that
can
serve
populations
with
different
needs,
which
I
think
right
now
interfaith
sanctuary
out
of
necessity
is
serving
all
populations
regardless
of
of
needs.
G
A
Okay,
that's
helpful
so
now
it'll
be
an
interfaith
sanctuary
and
then
it'll
be
multi-site
that
are
defined
by
two
ways:
multiple
smaller
shelters
and
second,
like
shelters
that
have
population
specific
services
and
recognizing
that
there's
a
ton
of
nuance
here.
L
I'm
only
andy
in
the
state
of
illinois,
okay,
it
seems
to
me
to
that
point
and
andy
got
what
I
wanted
to
say,
which
was
there's
a
difference
between
the
impact
of
interfaith
and
a
future
orientation.
This
document
is
all
about
future
orientation
and
in
that
sense,
what
b
is
talking
about
if,
in
a
needs,
analysis
for
the
recommendation
of
leadership
meet
the
need
for
emergency
shelter
needs
analysis.
L
There
could
be
a
fourth
point
under
there
very
easily.
That
said,
would
there
be
better
shelter
access
if
we
had
more
low
barrier
shelters
in
the
long
range,
and
then
that
does
nothing
to
do
with
interfaith's
model
or
this
particular
shelter,
which
this
document
has
actually
steered
clear
of
in
its
entirety?.
F
One
just
quick
point
to
andy's
comment
about
the
word
broad.
I
wonder
if
you
could
consider
an
alternative
of
various.
There
was
various
interests
which
I
think
gets
at
more.
What
there
really
was
perfect
because
it
wasn't,
I
don't
think,
even
a
majority.
Well,
it
was
probably
a
majority,
but
it
was
so
varied.
Does
that
make
sense.
F
A
K
I
would
just
say
that
the
final
paragraph,
the
language
about
it's
unclear
how,
as
a
practical
matter
this
could
be
explored.
I
feel
that
that
has
kind
of
a
negative
connotation
and
maybe
replacing
it
with
the
task
force,
did
not
explore
as
a
practical
matter
how
this
would
work
with
funding
development
and
operations.
Okay,.
A
Okay
landing
the
plane
on
multi-site
going
once
not
going
to
do
twice
or
sold
we're
just
moving
on.
Okay
and
I'll
tell
you
all.
This
is
the
last
larger
conversation
we
have
to
have
and
to
me
it's
an
incredible
sign
that
we
only
had
two
major
conversations
that
I
felt
that
we
needed
to
have
whether
it
didn't
seem
like
we
could
land
it
without
feeling
like.
I
was
confident
in
making
the
changes
to
recommendations,
so
I
want
to
like
applaud
this
group
on
that.
A
This
the
reason
I
cannot
land
the
plane
here
in
any
way
other
than
what's
laid
out
is
because
there
are
competing
interests,
among
not
only
individuals
on
the
task
force,
but
even
members
of
the
group
from
feedback
that
we
received
about
what
that
group
actually
decided,
and
that
leads
to
the
larger
threat
of
conversation
that
we're.
A
Having
last
time
where
multiple
members
on
the
task
force
talked
about
the
impossibility
of
public
input
as
aligned
with
any
realistic
timelines
for
the
implementation
of
shelter
as
it
moves
through
various
stages
of
citing
which
go
from
community
conversations
through
cup
through
like
approval
cep
and
then
dating
back
to
like
how
do
you
even
scope
land?
How
do
you
buy
land?
A
How
do
you
buy
a
building,
so
I
just
wanted
to
walk
you
through
the
way
that
I
ended
up
landing
it
that
I
feel
like
meets
the
highest
need
or
the
highest
expressed
value
interest
from
this
group.
So
the
first
thing
is
a
shelter.
Obviously,
operator
has
interest
in
a
particular
area
and
I
think
they
have
a
couple
of
ways
that
they
can
move
through,
that
one
of
the
things
that
I've
heard
is
well.
A
They
shouldn't
buy
a
building
until
they
know
for
sure
that
they
can
use
it,
and
I
think
what
we've
heard
and
what
I
understand
from
being
in
the
nonprofit
sector.
You
don't
necessarily
have
capital
on
capital
just
to
buy
buildings
without
leveraging
some
assets.
That's
kind
of
what
happened
here
in
any
future
case.
A
It
would
take
some
type
of
public
funding
if
we
wanted
to
move
through
a
public
input
process
before
a
shelter
operator
where
some
public
entity
was
willing
to
buy
a
space
hold
that
space
go
through
the
process
and
then
pass
it
over
to
some
shelter
operator.
So
that's
kind
of
where,
as
a
practical
matter,
thing
comes
through
with
multi-site,
so
in
this
instance
we're
using
interface
sanctuary
as
the
model,
but
also
extrapolating
that
to
any
future
model,
a
shelter
operator
would
buy
a
space.
A
The
next
step
that
was
suggested
by
that
group
is
a
proactive
emergency
and
safety
plan.
This
is
tied
to
a
conditional
use
permit
process
that
is
ongoing.
This
is
for
two
reasons,
one.
It
is
already
part
of
a
conditional
use
permit
process.
Different
agencies
have
to
submit
feedback
reports
or
impact
reports
based
on
any
project.
That's
coming
through
with
a
conditional
use
permit.
The
suggestion
here
was
go
beyond
that
and
say
that
those
agencies
would
work
together,
not
only
to
issue
individual
impact
reports,
but
develop
collective
reports
together
about
how
will
we
work
together?
A
I
think
this
is
where
you
heard
jeanette
and
jody
say
there
are
working
groups
on
street
outreach
that
are
composed
of
those
actors
already.
What
would
it
look
like
for
them
to
come
together
and
say:
hey?
We
know
that
the
shelter
is
putting
a
cup
on
for
this
site.
This
is
what
those
things
would
look
like
in
real
time.
Not
just
saying
boise
police
department
could
shift,
but
the
boise
police
department
saying
this
is
how
we
would
shift
to
meet
the
service
need
here.
A
There
was
desire
to
have
that
be
public
input,
but
I
took
that
out
because
it's
inherently
a
separate
process
and
that
body
of
individuals
doesn't
have
the
capacity
nor
structure
to
engage
a
public
input
process,
so
they
will
do
work
that
is
within
the
standards
of
our
path
home.
To
say,
this
is
how
we're
using
things
like
this
report
to
develop
evaluation
and
say
what
we
think
of
the
project
that
would
be
used
in
the
conditional
use
permit
process.
A
Then
there's
a
conditional
use
permit
decision
that
comes
with
a
whole
bunch
of
public
engagement,
which
we
said
the
city
of
voices
should
take
a
role
in
developing
more
robust
public
engagement
support
so
that
people
can
get
engaged
in
that
process
and
it
would
be
informed
by
the
things
that
were
developed
ahead.
Of
that
then
there's
a
good
neighbors
agreement,
so
the
good
neighbors
agreement,
as
we
understand
it,
is
after
a
conditional
use
permit
process
has
been
approved
and
it
says
yes,
we
will
be
in
this
city.
We
will
be
in
this
neighborhood.
A
That
is
the
time
to
set
up
a
permanent
structure
for
okay,
we're
going
to
be
here.
Let's
sit
down
and
develop
the
long-term
structure,
and
that
might
be
the
same
folks
that
were
involved
in
the
community
engagement
board
or
it
might
be
entirely
different.
Folks,
the
nature
of
a
good
neighbor's
agreement
is
about
a
definitive
answer.
We
will
be
here
in
definitive
planning
for
what
we
will
do
together
and
we
created
the
room
for
it's
likely
that
some
people
who
are
on
the
community
engagement
board
might
not
be
interested
in
that
long-term
thing.
A
This
is
a
really
clearly
defined
process,
as
elaine
said,
and
folks
wanted
more
information
about
the
conditions
of
conditional
use
permit,
and
I
would
just
point
you
back
to
that
process.
The
first
word,
and
that
inherently
is
condition.
A
They
are
laid
out
pretty
explicitly
there
and
then
there's
enforcement
code,
and
one
thing
that
I
think
and
the
our
path
home
evaluation
that
would
be
added
is
a
potential
for
our
path
home
to
come
back
and
look
at
their
evaluation
after
implementation
and
check
in
with
the
shelter
as
an
operator
to
see
how
they're
doing
so,
I'm
going
to
pause
here.
But
the
things
I
want
to
say
are:
this
is
already
an
incredible
amount
of
engagement
without
considering
the
shelter
task
force.
A
The
main
desire
that
I
heard
was
that
community
engagement
board
should
be
permanent,
and
I
heard
that
from
one
individual
and
it's
in
direct
conflict
with
feedback
that
we
got
from
two
other
people
within
the
task
force.
So
this
is,
I
think,
where
I
did
my
best
work
to
lay
out.
Logically,
how
does
this
move
forward,
and
so
I
would
ask
you
all
what
are
major
flags
you
have
here
see
tom.
H
This
is
tom
from
sunset.
I
think
the
one
thing
I
think
actually
did
a
pretty
good
job
of
laying
that
out,
I
think,
was
my
group
that
had
this
mostly
the
r
path
home
evaluation.
I
part
of
our
thought,
if
I
remember
correctly,
was-
was
more
along
the
lines
of
well
no
there's
an
evaluation,
but
in
addition,
our
path
home.
H
Would
these
five
bullet
points
you
have
on
here
would
do
would
before
this
process
ever
started
again
before
there
was
ever
any
other
interfaith
sanctuary,
other
group
looking
at
homeless
shelters
they
would
have.
They
would
take
these
five
bullet
points
and
make
a
much
larger
and
more
detailed
plan
going
ahead
forward.
These
are
just
kind
of
our
broad
recommendations
and
then
they
would
specif
specif
whatever.
That
word
is
be
more
specific,
going
forward
on
what
that,
what
that
plan
would
be?
Does
that
make
sense.
H
Yeah
I'll
say
in
a
different
way.
We
had
these
five
bullet
points,
but
our
path
home
with
would
put,
would
have
a
much
more
detailed
description
of
what
should
be
done
in
the
future.
For
all
these
bullet
points.
Okay,
so,
basically,
what
I'm
saying
is
the
people
who
know
what
they're
doing
spend
time,
making
an
evaluation
for
all
the
you
know
the
entire
process,
putting
it
laying
out
going
forward.
Okay,
the
goal
is
to
avoid
the
type
of
stuff
we're
seeing
right
now.
E
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
would
be
really
helpful,
and
this
goes
back
to
the
kind
of
community
engagement
by
the
city
to
help
neighbors
understand
process
is.
There
was
a
lot
of
concern
when
we
did
our
public
engagement
beyond
what
was
required
through
the
cup
that
they
wanted
the
police
there.
They
wanted
the
fire
department
there.
E
They
wanted
the
city
there
to
stand
alongside
us
and
be
responsible
for
answering
questions
that
we
couldn't
answer,
and
what
we
learned
is
that,
until
a
conditional
use
permit
gets
to
a
certain
point,
that's
not
appropriate
for
these
agencies
to
step
in,
and
so
it
looked
like.
We
were
kind
of
dodging,
but
I
think,
if
there's
a
clear
understanding
about
that
timeline
for
when
you
can
actually
get
those
real
answers,
it
would
really
help
any
project,
look
transparent
and
also
there's
an
understanding
about.
E
K
For
the
our
path
home
evaluation,
I
I
think
I
heard
a
different
thing
and
what
that
means
than
tom
did.
My
understanding
was
that
that
the
our
path
home
would
be
effectively
creating
a
matrix
for
site
evaluation
and
selecting
criteria
and
putting
together
a
scoring
system
so
hearing
that
there
couldn't
be
any
public
engagement
and
what
that
matrix
looked
like
was
a
concern
to
me.
A
Yeah
hear
that
concern,
and
I
don't
think
that
that's
concern
holds
larger
consensus,
based
on
the
overwhelming
opportunity
for
this
report
to
influence
what
that
evaluation
would
look
like
and
in
fact
dictate
the
creation
of
those
criteria
and
then
the
additional
public
input
opportunities.
So
that
concern,
I
think,
was
noted
in
the
tier
one,
and
I
just
don't
think
that
there
was
consensus
to
say
that
definitely
needs
to
be
opened
up
and
through.
L
I
guess
I'd
be
tempted
to
say
to
stretch
where
tom
went
and
push
it
a
little
further
and
say
I
think
our
recommendation
should
be
that
our
path
home
and
the
city
come
up
with
a
timeline.
That's
clearly
stated
and
it
involved
these
events,
but
I
don't
know
that
we're
capable
right
now
of
knowing
exactly
which
piece
goes
where
in
that
timeline,
because
there
are
things
we
just
don't
have
the
information.
That's
what
I
meant
to
say.
B
My
only
comment
is,
I
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
this
outreach
is
super
clear
and
what
role
is
appropriate
for
the
city
versus
a
private
entity
making
a
decision,
so
the
city
doesn't
trigger
the
decision
to
cite
a
shelter,
so
there's
a
space
where
it's
inappropriate
for
the
city
to
intervene.
B
Wow.
I
agree
doing
a
much
better
job
of
being
clear
when
the
city's
engagement
is
who
it
is,
whether
it's
the
police
or
fire
or
the
council,
or
who
it
is,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
give
the
impression
that
the
city
can
manage
community
outreach
events
on
decisions
it
itself
doesn't
make
so
and
with
that,
if
it's
all
right,
because
I'm
about
to
run
late
for
a
really
important
meeting,
I
just
wanted
to
go
over
next
steps.
B
Real
quick,
so
casey
is
somehow
going
to
magically
make
this
all
work
by
the
end
of
the
day.
B
We
plan
on
releasing
this
report
today,
I'm
scheduled
to
do
an
overview
of
this
report
with
the
city
council
on
tuesday
at
a
work
session
which
will
be
streamed
for
anybody
who
wants
to
see
it.
In
addition,
I'm
happy
to
provide
that
presentation
to
any
other
entities
in
which
you
think
it
might
be
helpful
and
then,
with
that,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
and
take
the
time
to
recognize
both
casey
and
rachel
for
all
their
work.
So
round
of
applause.
B
A
I
think
if
anyone
else
has
burning
burning
stuff
we
can
hold
for
that,
but
the
only
other
next
step
that
I
would
add
to
this
is
that
we
will-
or
I
will
be
reaching
out
to
each
of
you
to
schedule
or
to
offer
you
time
to
schedule
one-on-one
with
me
to
do
just
a
process
exit
interview,
and
my
intention
is.
This-
is
obviously
my
first
time
doing
a
task
force.
I
am
now
like
four
months
into
the
city
of
boise.
A
This
was
a
wild
thing
to
learn
through
and
we
heard
a
lot
of
consternation
generally
about
the
process,
and
I
know
that
the
city
of
boise
regularly
does
task
force
and
other
folks
who
run
task
force
or
reaching
out
to
us.
Because-
and
I
encourage
you
to
do
this-
go
look
at
any
other
task
force
at
the
city
of
boise.
What
you'll
see
is
a
page
and
their
final
report,
and
that
is
all
the
information
that
you
have.
A
So
we've
done
a
lot
more
work
on
public
engagement
and
transparency
here,
and
we
have
a
lot
more
to
learn.
So
I
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
sit
down
with
y'all.
If
you
want
where
I
will
just
ask
you,
questions
about
the
process,
you'll
give
me
feedback
and
then
I'll
turn
that
into
a
task
force,
recommendations
thing
that
we
will
pass
around
to
all
other
city
staff
that
engage
in
task
force
development.
A
H
G
If
you,
if
you
have
a
just
30
seconds,
my
thought
was
that
our
path
home
could
come
up
with
a
process
and
the
city
as
far
as
looking
at
conditional
use,
permit,
could
look
and
see
has
whoever
is
applying
for
whatever
it
is
gone
through
and
gotten
to
our
path
home,
followed
that
process
and
gotten
their
stamp
of
approval.
And
then
we
kind
of
start
through
a
lot
of
the
community
engagement,
because
none
of
us
can
say
to
a
business
person.
G
So
I
was
just
trying
to
say
is:
maybe
there's
a
way
that
we
can
be
of
assistance
and
hap,
and
we
come
out
with
a
plan
in
conjunction
with
some
of
the
ideas
that
have
come
up
through
this
task
force
of
hear
the
steps
that
people
have
to
work
through.
If
they
kind
of
want
to
get
going
on
this
and
have
the
backing
of
our
path
home.
A
Great-
and
I
think
I
saw
tom
nodding
their
head-
that
that
was
the
intention
so
I'll
make
that
adjustment
and
what
I'll
do
is.
I
can't
promise
you
that
this
will
be
like
this
process
takes
exactly
three
weeks,
but
what
I
will
do
is
light
these
out
and
put
just
like
a
one
sentence
intention
and
then
include
this
as
an
additional
appendix
in
the
report,
so
that
people
can
see
and
I'll
make
that
shift
for
the
archive
home
to
evaluation
to
be
at
the
beginning.
A
Noting
that
that
does
there
it'll
be
just
a
slight
change
in
intention,
because
then
the
our
path
home
body
is
just
evaluating
the
site,
not
including
any
type
of
community
input,
because
that
community
input
will
necessarily
not
have
been
gathered
until
the
development
of
a
community
engagement
board.
And
so
it's
it's
just
a
process
recommendation.
I
think
it'll
ultimately
be
up
to
the
our
path
home
partnership
to
figure
out.
A
When
is
that
process
best
placed
because
there
is
like
the
neighborhood
perception,
often
in
cases
like
this,
and
this
would
make
it
real
that
our
path
home
has
already
stamped
its
approval
on
this,
and
why
are
we
even
doing
community
engagement
then,
and
then
there's
like
a
nerve.
So
it's
a
it's
a
line
of
when
do
experts
step
in
and
voice
opinion,
and
do
they
do
that
before
the
public
or
after
so
I'll,
make
that
shift
in
here,
but
it
might
be,
as
with
most
things
in
this
subject,
to
change
at
some
future
date.
A
Okay,
I
think
we've
landed
the
plane
sufficiently
here,
knowing
that
we
don't
have
like
total
consensus,
any
closing
remarks
from
y'all
as
we'll
rush
to
incorporate
these
edits
today,.
F
If,
if
I
could
just
say
quickly
and
and
be
to
you
online,
whoever
else
is
listening.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
participating,
so
honestly,
so
diligently
and
with
such
passion,
really
appreciate.
It
means
a
lot.