►
From YouTube: Social Services Committee - 10-14-2021
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).
B
I
just
need
a
motion
correct
from
somebody
to
suspend
the
rules
so
that
we
can
participate
virtually
yes
electronically
or
by
telephone.
Could
somebody
make
that
motion.
C
B
All
right,
wonderful,
thank
you.
Do
I
need
a
voice
vote
on
this.
Is
that
fine
call
vote?
Please
a
roll
call,
wonderful.
B
Wondering
I
thank
you
perfect,
all
right,
wonderful
and
then
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
so
2021
social
services
funding
committee,
discussion
and
allocation
recommendations.
A
B
Perfect
was
that
either
derek
or
archery
was.
B
A
E
H
E
Apologize
you're
right:
we
do
archna,
aye
amanda
and
the
gullah.
I
Oh,
I'm
sorry
we're
we
wouldn't
have
a
roll
call
yet
just
because.
A
I
A
Right
so
you're
right,
we
do
have
a
very
brief
intro,
which
is
also
for
our
viewers.
A
You
know
people
attending
the
meeting
just
of
the
sort
of
process
that,
if
jessica,
could
take
us
through
that
and
then
we
have
a
spreadsheet
and
I
just
want
to
give
a
little
bit
of
setup
because
historically
we
have
a
spreadsheet
and
you
know
we
put
in
the
s.
You
know
the
recommendations
from
the
committee
and
it
adjusts
and
shows
if
we're
over
or
under-
and
things
like
that,
and
it's
going
to
be
a
little
challenging
because
normally
we
have
a
better.
A
You
can
see
more
on
the
screen,
but
our
thought
is:
we've
got
it
divided
into
our
two
sections
case
management
and
safety
net,
and
we
would
start
with
one
go
through
that
and
then
make
any
adjustments
because
of
course,
those
those
sort
of
funding
amounts.
The
allocations
are
soft
caps.
If
you
will
they're
just
they
were
just
to
help
the
committee
look
at
the
funding
to
requests
ratio.
If
you
will,
but
we
thought
it
would
be
useful
to
try
to
set
that
up.
So
if
jessica
could
just
go
through
a
couple.
A
E
Okay,
so
thanks
so
much
we
did
go
over
the
agenda.
I
just
wanted
to
briefly
again
highlight
our
three
sources
of
funding,
so
it's
our
cvg
allocation
for
2021
in
the
amount
of
283
576.
E
These
funds
are
to
be
spent
in
calendar
year
2021..
We
have
125
733
in
our
cdbg
cv.
So
for
these
funds
there
must
be
a
specific
tie
back
to
prevent,
prepare
for
and
respond
to
covered
and
then
finally,
we
have
our
most
flexible
pot
of
money.
It's
our
local
human
services
fund
in
the
amount
of
seven
thousand
six
hundred
and
I'm
sorry,
seven
hundred
sixty
three
thousand
three
hundred
and
seventy
three
dollars.
E
Okay
in
under
the
new
service
delivery
model,
we're
going
to
be
reviewing
applications
for
case
management
and
social
services
or
excuse
me,
safety
net
services.
E
E
No,
sadly,
we're
still
going
to
be
in
well
we'll.
E
Yep
excel,
but
just
not
as
friendly.
Okay,
as
sarah
mentioned,
if
I
could
just
go
over
the
highlights
of
some
of
this
sheet
here
at
the
top
under
e5,
is
our
total
funding
amount
when
we
go
through
and
I'm
just
going
to
walk
us
through,
as
the
committee
makes
allocation
recommendations,
I'll
be
filling
those
in
and
and
the
sheet
will
automatically
populate
so
clearly,
you
know
we
could
give
the
james
b
moran
center
a
million
dollars.
E
They
would
appreciate
that,
but
I
do
this
just
to
show
that
the
amount
we
have
remaining
will
change
up
at
the
top.
Our
case
management
subtotal
will
appear
here
in
this
black
bar.
It
will
this
sheet
will
let
us
know
how,
over
or
under
we
are
again
in
that
soft
cap.
So
the
the
committee
isn't
committed,
but
we're
just
using
this
as
marker,
and
then,
if
we
were
to
do
the
same
for
safetynet.
E
Again,
everyone
can
see
that
that
the
amount
populates
under
the
safety
net
total
this
black
bar
here
under
row.
29.
E
It
lets
us
know
how,
over
or
under
the
committee
is,
and
then,
as
sarah
mentioned,
we
can't
quite
see
the
whole
screen.
But
here
at
the
bottom,
if
you
notice
support
services
just
hanging
on,
we
do
have
a
soft
cap
of
130
320,
and
so
this
sheet
will,
let
us
know
if
we've
dipped
into
support
services
and
if
so,
by
how
much.
E
Okay,
so
let
me
make
everything
right
again:
some
other
features
of
this
sheet
and
I'm
happy
to
share
these
or
hide
these
in
column
b.
We
see
the
amounts
that
agencies
requested
in
their
original
application
in
column
c.
We
have
the
average
scores
that
that
committee
members
provided
in
d.
We
have
the
amounts
as
impacted
by
those
scores.
I'm
sorry
by
that
I
mean
committee
members
provided
individually
through
through
zoom
grants
and
like
a
draft
award
and
and
so
in
column
d,
we
have
the
average
of
those.
E
Draft
awards
that
that
committee
members
provided
again
just
as
a
piece
of
information
so
and
and
then
column
f,
will
show
us
how
much
is
allocated
what
what
percent
based
on
the
request
and
then
what
percent
is
based
on
on
the
average.
So
that's
a
lot,
but
I
think
one
once
we're
able
to
kind
of
go
through
it.
E
The
committee
members
will
see
how
this
spreadsheet
works,
assuming
it's
going
to
work
well,
which
I've
been
working
on
it
most
of
the
day,
so
it
better
and
we
can
just
start
should
people
want
to
want
to
jump
right
in
historically,
when
we
make
the
original
motion
we
move
either.
You
know
award
by
a
board
or
in
totals
so
it's
it's
at
the.
B
Anything
from
discussion
purpose
we
can
move
line
by
line
or
our
award
by
a
word
and
then
and
then
happy
to
to
vote
in
the
l
on
based
off
of
the
subtotals.
The
category
subtotals.
E
So
we
can
do
that.
We
typically
make
total
or
allocations
for
each
and
then
vote
each
one
individually.
Everything
has
been
discussed
and.
C
Nailed
down
perfect,
that's
great,
so
quick
question
with
the
column
b:
that's
the
total
447
693
is
the
total
requested,
correct,
correct
and
the
total
that
we
have
to
distribute
is
450..
A
Technically,
you
could
fund
everybody
at
their
request
unusual
to
go
above
that
when
we
were
making
those
soft
caps,
we
were
just
trying
to
give
a
sort
of
category.
C
E
And
then
anything
remaining
would
move
down
to
the
the
available
amount
for
support
towards.
A
One
well,
it
would
go
to
support
services,
but
that
could
be
put
that
doesn't
mean
it
has
to
go
there.
The
committee
can
again
choose
to
put
it
into
safety
net
services
if
that
were
their
desire
safety
net.
Just
the
way
we
didn't
want
to
the
the
numbers
are
pretty
close
for
the
categories
at
full
amount.
A
E
F
Yeah,
I
was
just
finishing
up
taking
some
notes,
and
so
I
missed
the
trying
to
see
what
category
is
called
the
averages.
There's
something
that
says
something:
requests
averages
or
something
like
that.
What
does
that
mean
again.
A
The
committee
members
scored
the
applications,
and
so
the
first
set
of
numbers
next
to
the
request
in
column
c,
is
the
average
score,
and
one
thing
just
to.
We
should
make
clear
in
the
case
management
category.
A
E
F
B
D
A
Well,
it
is
certainly
something
that
is
necessary
to
actually
implement
the
structure
of
of
provi,
of
allowing
case
management
agencies
to
access
funding,
to
provide
specific
services
that
are
part
of
the
case.
Plans
of
the
of
the
individuals
or
households
they're
working
with.
A
Is
it
absolutely
required
that
there
be
money
for
it?
No,
but
I
don't
believe
that
you
know
if
we
were
to
allocate
all
the
funding
to
the
categories
of
safetynet
and
case
management.
We
would
be
actually
funding
over
people
over
agencies
requests,
which
is
not
generally
something
we've
ever
done.
D
Our
recommendation
starts
off
with
the
2021
request
for
the
agencies
for
both
sections
and
then
we
look
to
see
how
much
is
left
which
might
be
over,
which
might
be
negative
for
the
support
services
at
the
bottom.
And
then
we
adjust
the
upper
sec.
The
sections
above
to
come
to
a
point
where
we're
satisfied
with
how
much
is
left
over
for
support
services,
and
then
we
can
use
the
average
score
plus
the
average
recommendations.
D
B
Dear,
can
I
state
that
back
to
you
to
make
sure
I
understood
what
you
were
saying.
D
Yeah
yeah,
so
I
was
thinking,
is
for
column
e
for
each
agency.
We
start
off
by
entering
in
the
2021
request
that
they
asked
for
so
in
the
case
of
you,
57
693,
and
then
go
down
the
list
that
way
same
thing
with
safetynet
services,
and
then
we
see
how
much
we
have
left
for
support
services,
which
would
probably
be
a
negative
number.
D
We'll
probably
I
think
we'll
be
over,
but
I
just
need
to
see
it
and
then
we
then
we
start
to
adjust
the
case
management
and
safety
net
services
agencies,
potentially
reducing
their
award
values
using
their
scores,
as
well
as
the
20
20
21
average.
That
was
provided
to
them
until
we
get
support
services
to
a
dollar
amount
that
we're
comfortable
with.
B
D
B
I
think
I
mean
just
looking
at
it
very
quickly.
We
would
just
be
over
by
a
couple
thousand
dollars.
It
looks
like
with
that,
but
amanda.
You
also
had
a
question.
I
want
to
make
sure.
G
Oh
yeah
thanks,
I
would
just.
I
was
only
going
to
offer
that
I
think
we
should
be
mindful
of
that
support
services
number,
because
we
we
haven't
opened
that
up
and
we
don't
know
what
people
will
need.
So
I
would
even
advocate
for
like
being
at
what
it
is
or
possibly
increasing
it,
but
you.
B
I
think
that's
a
very
good
point
amanda
and
I
think
it
does
align
with
what
derek
was
saying
so
jessica.
Is
it
possible
to
just
copy
and
paste
the
2021
request,
column
b
into
columny
and
have
excel
do
the
math
for
us,
because
I
at
least
am
quite
tired
at
the
moment
or
google
sheets?
Do
the
math.
E
B
B
Yes,
sorry
and
councilman
burns,
you
had
an
inquiry.
F
Yeah,
so
the
so
the
support
services
grant
period
hasn't
opened.
Yet
we
don't.
A
B
And
so,
when
we
do
this,
I
see
that
we
are
in
aggregate
when
case
management
and
safety
net
services,
and
I
apologize
if
you
can
hear
an
infant.
We
are
fifteen
hundred
and
twenty
dollars
over
the
original
allocations
for
those
two
subcategories
and
so
derek
your
recommendation
was
we
then
look
at
the.
B
I
guess
I
made
an
assumption
that
we
could
move
that
that
2300
and
seven
dollars
from
case
management
sort
of
down
to
that
safety
net
to
account
for
that
38
27
and
then
try
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
that.
How
to
reduce
for
that
15
20..
However,
we
could
obviously
reduce
further
and
give
more
room
to
social
safety
support
services
as
well,
but
that
sort
of
gives
us
an
idea
of
where
we
are
based
off
of
the
original
requests
right
and
jessica
or
sarah.
B
I
wanted
to
inquire
because
there
are
certain
limitations
on
the
funding,
specifically
the
covid
funding.
Are
you
all
able
to
I
mean?
Were
you
comfortable
with
how
some
of
the
agencies
provided
data
on
that
fund
on
their
requests
to
sort
of
meet
that
piece
comfortably
to
make
sure
that
we're
in
compliance
with
funding
limitations?
Yes
very
easily?
Okay,
wonderful.
A
The
one
one
category
that
will
always
be
local
funds
is
support
services,
because
that
we
can't
use
our
flexible
ways
of
procuring
that,
with
our
federal
funds,
they're
kind
of
a
pain
in
the
neck.
For
that.
B
Perfect,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
wasn't
that
that
I
made
sure
that
we
we
had
opportunity
to
hear
your
your
inquiry
or
your
points,
and
so
with
this
we
are
slightly
over
for
these
two
categories.
B
Amanda,
you
had
sort
of
indicated,
obviously
there's
so
much,
and
we
don't
quite
know
yet
where
what
the
need
for
support
services
will
be,
I'm
so
not
really
an
interest
in
diving
in
or
dipping
into
that,
130
thousand
and
I
apologize
since
it's
been
updated,
but
with
that
allocation
and
then
so
so
this
is
sort
of
where
we
are.
B
You
also
indicated
potentially
wanting,
or
I
thought
you
did
potentially
wanting
to
maybe
leave
a
little
extra
for
that
subcategory.
Given
that
we
don't
know,
but
that
might
have
been
my
my
understanding
of
what
you
were
saying,
not
necessarily
your
point.
I
J
G
Over
funding
the
support
services,
but
I
guess
I'd
hate,
for
you
know
the
applications
to
come
in
and
us
not
be
able
to
fund
those.
Nearly
you
know.
If
we're
able
to
fund
everything
100,
you
know,
could
we
maybe
decrease
by
one
percent
across
the
board
or
something
like
that
such
that
we
could
also
still
fund
the
support
services?
I
guess
would
be
an
idea.
B
And
is
it
possible
jessica
if
we
go
through
and
do
2020
allocations?
Let's
say
we
do
95
and
I'm
just
pulling
a
number,
I'm
not
advocating.
Let's
say
we
do
95
of
the
request
for
safetynet
and
case
management
services.
We
get
the
applications
for
support
services.
Are
we
able
to
go
back
and
adjust
if
we
over-funded
support
services
too
much?
Are
we
able
to
later
increase
those
awards
and.
A
A
And
I
just
also
want
to
point
out
that,
because
originally
we
had
more
for
support
services,
partly
because
some
of
the
support
services-
obviously
you
know
these-
are
things
that
are
being
procured
and
we
we
can't
carry
over
all
our
money,
we're
getting
remarkably
close
to
2022
so
kind
of
in
an
interesting
situation.
There.
B
Yeah,
yes
good
point
councilman
burns
and
and
then
I
see
her
as
well
aren't
you.
C
A
A
Because
of
the
way
allocations
came
in
and
the
late
time
of
year
and
the
ability
to
fund
safety
the
support
services
out
of
2022
sooner,
you
know
we,
we
we
made
a
suggested
re-allocation,
but
again,
that's
just
a
soft
cap,
and
so
we
don't
want
you
to
feel
bound
by
that,
but
it
was
just
a
looking
at
what
the
actual
applications
were.
A
I
do
we
are
and
talk
in
discussions
with
some
of
the
support
services,
agencies
or
agencies
that
have
expressed
an
interest
in
that,
and
also
the
agencies
that
were
moved
into
that
category
and
if
they
can
track
that
they
have
worked
with
clients
in
their.
What
would
be
a
support
service
that
we
can
track
to
a
agency?
That
is
a
case
management
agency.
We
would
recommend
that
we
figure
out
a
way
to
compensate
them
for
that
for
work
done
in
2021,
because
many
of
the
agencies
will
be
using
some.
A
F
A
This
is
the
first
year
we've
used
this
allocation
method,
so
it
is,
and
that's
why
we're
doing
it
so
late.
We
had
to.
We
had
a
lot
of
changes
this
year
and
we've
been
going
through
this
process,
so
we
really
don't
have
any
history
with
it
at
all.
A
There
are
multiple
ways
that
the
support
services
funding
could
be
allocated
or
could
be
could
be
accounted
for,
but
it's
basically
the
idea
is
that
it
would
be
on
a
fee-for-service
basis,
for
whatever
services
are
provided
to
someone
in
case
management,
for
example,
a
an
agency
that
has
a
very
you
know
a
a
program
that
would
fit
the
needs
of
someone
in
case
management
might
be
referred
to
that
and
what
we
would
calculate
is
we
work
with
the
agencies
ahead
of
time.
A
The
idea
is
to
talk
to
the
case
management
agencies
find
out
the
services
that
they
are
looking
to
refer
to
find
the
providers
and
calculate
a
fee
for
service
that
we
can
then
say.
You
know,
we
estimate
that
there
will
be
x
referrals
to
this
agency,
so
we
would
do
an
agreement
of
up
to
this
much
spending.
They
would
be
compensated
as
individual
referrals
were
identified,
not
necessarily
literally
paid
only
then,
but
in
some
cases,
maybe
paid
a
portion
of
the
expected
grant,
and
then
they
would
spend
against
that.
A
As
you
know,
because
it's
very
hard
it's
a
cash
flow
thing
for
the
agencies
and
we
don't
want
to
penalize
them
and
say
you
only
get
paid
after
somebody
has
completed
the
use
of
your
services.
That's
a
you
know,
but
but
it
would
be
a
way
of
funding
them
so
that
when
an
agency
gives
a
referral,
there
would
be
some
funding
that
comes
with
the
referral
so
that
they
have
the
funding
to
in
essence
provide
the
service.
J
A
B
And
sarah
or
jessica
do
you
have
for
the
agencies
that
we
moved
over
to
support
services?
Do
you
have
a
number
of
sort
of
what
they
originally
requested
that
might
serve
as
sort
of
a
helpful
component
as
we're
thinking
about
the
potential
requests
amounts
we
might
get
for
that
category
and
with
that
as
you're,
I'm
sure
searching
derek.
You
had
an
inquiry.
E
Got
four
applicants
under
the
supplemental
services
category
but
again,
as
sarah
said
there,
because
we
didn't
open
up
our
support
services
application
there.
E
We
know
that
there
are
other
community
partners
who
who
would
like
to
join
that
conversation.
But
if
the
four
applicants
in
this
most
recent
round
of
funding
were
to
be
eligible
for
support
services,
those
requests,
totaled
128
800.
B
And
so
we-
and
we
know
there
are
others
out
there,
of
course,
because
we
didn't
open
up
this,
this
application
process
yet,
and
so
we
would
be
looking
at
potentially
if
we
were
to
fund
fully
for
safety
and
services
and
case
management
at
100.
We'd,
most
likely
be
funding
the
support
services
which
important
to
note,
make
case
management
successful
at
a
a
rate
of
less
than
100
of
the
request,
and
I
think
that
might
have
been
potentially
amanda
again.
F
Sarah,
have
we
ever
used
funding
to
support
kind
of
internal
city
of
emerson
initiatives
or
efforts?
I'm
thinking
about
you
know
our
outreach
workers
provides
case
management.
Have
we
ever
used
this
funding
to
support
that
work.
A
No,
the
purpose
of
this
committee's
work
is
for
funding.
That
is,
is
basically
allocated
for
external
agencies.
We
fund
at
one
point.
We
used
to
fund
both
the
summer
youth
and
payment
program
and
the
certificate
of
rehab,
partly
out
of
cdbg,
but
we
made
an
internal
decision
that
those
programs
should
be
funded
fully
from
the
city
in
the
city
budget
and
partly
just
because
it
makes
it
much
it's
a
management
tool
as
well,
because
if
the
city,
what
we
end
up
doing,
is
we're
trying
to.
A
F
A
I'm
sorry
I
interrupted
you.
We
did
say
that
our
case
manager,
our
case
managers,
could
access
support
services
for
their
clients,
and
we
also
have
said
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
case
management
organizations
that
are
doing
case
management
that
have
other
sources
of
funding
for
that,
but
qualify
as
robust
case
management
will
ultimately
be
able
to
access
the
support
services
money
as
well,
because
if
somebody
already
has
case
management
funding,
but
they
still
lack
those
that
ability
to
get
their
clients
into
services.
A
We
are,
we
don't
want
them
to
not
have
that
ability
and
I
will
be
frank-
we're
not
going
to
be
fully
implementing
this
with
the
remainder
of
2021.
I
think
we're
going
to
see
some
real
shifts
in
2022
and
we
are
going
to
recommend
that
the
committee
look
at
2022
funding
once
we
get
our
cdbg
grant.
So
we
know
what
our
total
amount
is
and
so
that
we
can
make
better
decisions
based
on
total
budget
and
everything
all
at
once.
A
So
we're
really
looking
at
you
know,
case
management,
safety
net
and
the
supportive
services
all
at
the
same
time,
so
we
can
better
allocate.
So
this
is
a
not
very
smooth
transition
to
the
new
funding
method,
largely
just
due
to
the
nightmare
of
covid
and
all
the
other
things
and
changes
going
on.
So
thank.
J
B
D
Thank
you
so
from
everything
that
I'm
hearing,
I
think
we
all
have
an
interest
in
making
the
support
services
estimate
of
130
000
whole,
and
so
what
I
think
that
would
then
result
or
require
from
us
is
then
to
to
keep
moving
the
conversation
forward
to
develop
some
sort
of
methodology
now
to
find
that
15
000
within
the
other
two
cost
categories.
Other
two
program
categories.
C
B
A
One
consideration
might
be
to
ask
if
there
are
any
awards
that
individual
committee
members
might
want
to
provide.
B
There
were
a
few
items
that
I
had
and
I
think
it
sort
of
ties
in
sarah
to
what
you
were
outlining
as
we
think
of
2022
as
well.
Obviously,
both
the
the
hack
case
management.
It
is
a
new
program,
it
has
not
be
gone.
Neither
has
my
understanding
is
the
metropolitan
family
services,
and
so
when
we
think
at
least
of
21
and
2022,
I
mean
sort
of
fully
funding.
Those
twice
would
be
a
problem
or
could
be
problematic
in
the
sense
that
my
understanding
is.
B
These
programs
don't
exist
in
21
at
this
point,
and
so
you
know,
there's
there's
something
to
be
said
for
those
two
programs
and
then
there's
also.
B
With
I
believe
it's
youth
and
opportunity,
can
you
scroll
up
a
little
bit
jessica?
Yes,
you
know
this
is
a
new
application
process.
We
did
split
out
safety,
net
services
and
case
management.
Is
there
potentially
a
little
bit
of
overlap
there
with
that
one
organization?
It's
worth
sort
of
you
know
highlighting
as
well.
A
Thought
of
I'll
just
make
the
note
that
we
would
look
at
the
housing
authority's
request
is.
Is
you
know?
Those
two
that
are
absol
are
new.
Whatever
level
you
know
they,
they
will
actually
be
spending
whatever
they're
allocated,
based
on
their
real
expenditures.
A
So
there's
one
way
to
look
at,
it
is
to
say,
hey
allocate
less
than
the
full
amount
that
would
still
carry
them
a
little
bit
into
2022
or
not
fund
them.
I
mean
or
there's
crossover,
in
other
words,
you're.
Absolutely
right
on
that.
I'm
going
to
let
jessica
maybe
talk
a
little
more
about
y-o-u.
E
You
submitted
a
an
application
for
safety
net
services
that
cited
primarily
the
the
majority
of
the
population
they
work
with.
E
But
then
the
application
itself
spoke
to
a
population
of
about
50,
homeless,
youth
and
it's
our
belief,
although
we
need
to
work
with
the
agency
that
the
50
homeless,
youth
once
they're
engaged
in
services
would
then
also
move
into
case
management
services
through
you's
case
management
program.
So
you're,
absolutely
right.
E
Their
staff
would
be
working
very
closely
with
the
agency
to
understand,
specifically
how
many
people
were
served
in
safetynet,
how
many
participants
are
served
in
case
management
and
and
what
that
overlap
looks
like.
E
It
also
appears
that
the
request
would
go
to
support
you
staff
and
it
appears
from
from
the
budgets
from
both
programs
that
that
the
staff
is
very
similar.
So
that
is,
that
is
another
area
where
staff
would
like
to
work
with
the
agency
to
understand
the
differences.
B
I
don't
know
if
that
answered
the
question
it
did
from
my
perspective
and
I
do
think
when
I
you
know
sort
of
noting
that
there
are
these
two
new
programs
that
don't
exist
yet
you
know
they're
they
and
we're
in
october
of
21
and
then
potentially
the
the
area
of
some
duplication.
B
G
Yeah,
I
yeah,
I
think,
a
targeted
you
know,
look
at
the
funding
is,
is
helpful
and
useful
and.
G
Just
point
our
attention
to
you
know:
some
of
the
agencies
really
are
very
are
not
close
to
that
to
the
top
of
the
score,
and
so
maybe
we
should
be
looking
at
those,
maybe
the
top
two,
the
bottom
two
or
three.
I
don't
know
we
could
decide
as
a
group,
but
maybe
we
should
be
looking
at
those
also
as
targeted
reductions
as
well.
B
Great
point
amanda
and
when
you
look
at
that,
especially
for
case
management,
we're
talking
about
the
same
two,
I
think
from
scoring
so
two
reasons
to
really
you
know:
have
that
targeted
approach
both
from
scoring
and
then
just
from
program
initiation.
And
then,
when
you
look
at
that
fro
for
the
safety
net
services,
that
would
be
the
north
shore
senior
center
and
then
child
care
network
would
have
the
two
lowest
scores.
A
Were
scored
on
the
60
number
scale,
not
the
70.,
so
I
they
still
would
be
lower
than
somewhat
lower,
but
they
aren't
quite
as
low.
I
just
wanted
to
point.
B
F
E
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
yes,
metropolitan
family
services.
The
city
has
funded
their
parenting
fundamentals,
class,
which
is
a
nine
week
class
that
typically
operates
out
of
the
joseph
hill
center
and
it
works
with
parents
who
either
have
had
or
are
at
risk
of
having
dcfs
involvement,
and
it
was
through
that
class
that
parents
sort
of
formed
community
and
could
then
access
deeper
case
management
services.
E
Historically,
this
program
has
served
a
large
latinx
population,
and
so
they
do
have
bilingual
staff,
and
this
request
it's
a
new
request
for
a
family
coach
who
would
be
responsible
for
helping
families
enroll
in
supportive
services
that
they
might
not
otherwise
be
able
to
navigate
that
that
process
of
benefits
enrollment
on
their
own.
E
So
while
that
position
is
not
specifically
a
case
management
position,
we
know
that
the
bulk
of
the
work
metropolitan
family
services
does
is,
is
absolutely
case,
management
and
and
that's
what
we
funded
them
for
in
the
past.
Through
that
parenting
fundamentals,
class.
A
F
F
J
F
Can
maintain
you
know
the.
E
I
think
that's
a
great
question
and,
and
it
sort
of
speaks
to
how
agencies
are
going
to
be
asked
to
report
under
case
management
and
under
safety
net
and
and
so
there
was
a
memo
in
the
packet
that
talked
about
the
requirements
but
for
for
case
management
agencies.
E
We
will
be
looking
at
the
number
of
new
participants
they're
able
to
enroll
the
number
of
like
service
plans,
they're
able
new
service
plans,
they're
able
to
create
per
quarter
and
look
at
at
outcomes
and
referral
connections,
and
we
do
believe
that
metropolitan
family
services
will
be
able
to
provide
the
reporting
that
shows
how
households
are
accessing
case
management,
creating
service
plans
and
then
moving
forward
through
that
process
to
help
them
become
self-sufficient.
F
Another
question
some
of
the
latest
is
so
in
in
that
I
think
it
was
the
case.
Management
criteria
said
ability
to
enroll
new
evidence
and
clients
during
a
12-month
period.
Evanston
clients,
compromise,
significant
percentage
of
total
clients,
so
does
that
is
new
clients
is
that
the
client
is
new
or
the
their
capacity
has
changed.
It's
new
that
their
capacity
has
increased.
They
can
take
on
more
additional
clients,
or
does
it
mean
a
new
client
at
the
individual
level?
What
is
what
does
enroll
new
evanston
clients
during
the
12-month
period?
E
So
that's
a
great
question.
We
mean
both
and
we
understand
that
agencies
are
working
with
evanston
residents
because
they've
been
you
know,
working
in
the
community
for
a
long
time.
But
we
do
want
to
understand
the
number
of
new
evanston
residents
that
they're
able
to
enroll
at
the
start
of
our
funding
period,
with
the
hope
that
city
funding
allows
them
to
expand
their
capacity
to
serving
evanston
residents
either
by
supporting
staff
working
with
the
population
or
increasing
staff.
F
Society,
I
would
imagine,
because
of
space
they're
captain
that
you
know
they
have
a
certain
capacity
level
that
they
have
to
that
they're
forced
to
maintain,
unless
they're
able
to
use
these
funds
to
increase
the
size
of
their
facilities,
which
this
wouldn't
be
enough
to
do
that.
So
and
again.
F
Obviously,
I
love
what
they
feel
well,
if
the
welfare
society
is
doing,
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
can
that
we
can
apply
these
this
criteria
evenly
for
future
requests,
and
so
what
was
the
thinking
behind
infant
welfare
society
and
putting
them
in
case.
E
Because
that
that
that
is
a
a
great
point
and
we
might
see
some
shifts,
as
we
might
see
some
shifts,
as
we
have
time
to
see
this
process
in
action-
you're
absolutely
right.
Infant
welfare
is
not
using
these
funds
to
expand
their
physical
nursery.
They
are
limited
to
the
number
of
child
care
slots
that
they
have.
They
only
have
16..
E
We
do
know
that
people,
households,
children,
move
through
the
program
as
participants
graduate
or
leave
the
program,
but
that
is
a
that
is
they
are
restricted
in
that
sense,.
A
You
can't
really
like
say:
oh
well,
let's
see,
can
everybody
get
20
more,
you
know
so,
but
the
nature
of
their
program
is
as
they
get
as
as
jessica
says,
as
somebody
sort
of
graduates
from
the
program
and
moves
on
out
of
school
and
their
children
do,
then
they
get
new
people
in
so
they
do
have
limits
on
how
much
turnover
they
can
have
based
on
the
nature
of
the
physical.
A
Space
for
child
care,
but
I
think
they
still
meet
the
spirit
of
taking
on
new
clients
just
by
the
the
ones
who
graduate
and
they
continue
to
fill
those
needs,
and
it
they
do
provide
a
very,
very
wide
range
of
services
and
supports
for
their
clients
that
fit
the
case.
Management
model.
F
I
want
to
move
it
around
to
let
some
other
folks
ask
their
questions,
so
I
can
explain
this
more
later,
but
I
think
we
might
want
to
consider
just
for
the
sake
of
ordering
this
or
putting
everybody
in
the
right
positions,
putting
them
to
social
or
the
safety
net
instead
of
case
management.
I'd
love
to
we
could
talk
about
that
further
later.
I
want
to
move
it
around
a
bit,
but
that
was
another
note
I
had.
D
You
so
I
I
agree
with
samantha
and
amanda's
recommendation
on.
If
we
are
gonna
withhold
some
of
the
funding
requests,
we
do
it
more
in
a
targeted
manner
and
I
think
potentially,
using
the
scores
that
agencies
received
on
their
applications
in
column
c
would
be,
could
be
a
justified
way
to
do
that.
But
the
one
request
I
have
here
jessica,
maybe
for
you,
since
you're
driving
this.
D
Could
you
if
it's
not
too
much
trouble,
would
you
be
able
to
create
a
column
right
next
to
column
c?
That
gives
them
a
percentage
score
based
on
what
their
score
was
out
of,
because
that'll
help
us
normalize
the
data
to
make
it
easier
to
compare.
So
I
think,
because
you
said
like
some
of
them
were
scored
out
of
60
but
they're
in
the
other
section
and
some
are
scored
out
of
70
and
they're
another
section.
D
E
We
can
try,
I
have
to
say
yeah,
so
let
me
make
sure
I'm
understanding
you
so
so
we
want
to
look
at
the
percent
base
based
on
the
score,
I'm
so
sorry,
let.
D
C
A
Okay,
all
of
the
agencies
that
are
in
case
management
now
applied
in
case
management,
so
they
have
been
scored
on
that
60
score.
I
will
try
to
create
what
the
comparable
score
for
books
and
breakfast
north
shore
senior
center
and
child
care
network
would
be
if
they
were
done
on
a
70
score.
I'll.
Just
try
to
do
the
math
here.
Well,
we're
working
on
that.
B
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
a
great
point
derek,
but
I
do
think
to
sarah's
point
because
case
management
they
were
all
out
of
60.
It's
gonna
get
basically
mirror
their
current
ranking
with
their
scoring,
but
where
I
think
it
will
be
particularly
useful
is
in
that
safety
net
category,
where
we
are
comparing
a
few
that
were
out
of
60
to
a
much
larger
amount
of
out
of
70..
So
I
think
that
focusing
on
the
safety
net
services
for
that
exercise,
especially
given
the
limitations.
A
Funding
recommendations
average
out
to
the
same
sort
of
relationship
of
the
scoring,
because
there
are
considerations
where
people
might
have
thought
something
was
a
very
important
category
and
there
weren't
many
applicants,
and
so
maybe
they
scored
a
little
lower
or
something
like
that.
I'm
not
sure.
If
that's
something
you
want
to
try
to
take
into
consideration
or
if
I'm
just
muddying
the
thing,
in
which
case
you
can
ignore
that.
E
I
wanted
to
say
that
historically,
the
mental
health
board
fund
or
the
mental
health
part
excuse
me,
use
those
scores
to
calculate
recommendations
and
scores,
for
example,
that
that
were
let's
say,
55
and
above
would
be
scored
at
like
90
or
95
of
the
ask
scores
sort
of
in
that
mid-range
would
be
scored
at
you
know,
80
percent
of
the
ask
and
then
scores
that
were-
and
I'm
just
looking
at
natural
breaks
here,
let's
say
in
the
40s-
would
would
be
scored
at
like
70
of
the
ask,
and
I
I'm
kind
of
making
those
numbers
up
based
on
what
we
have
here.
E
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that
the
committee
use
that,
but
that
is
a
way
that
the
mental
health
board,
quantified,
requests
and
and
sort
of
married,
the
the
scoring
and
and
requests,
and
so
that's
something
that
the
committee
could
do
maybe
moving
forward
or
I
might
be
able
to
create
a
formula
quickly
that
that
could
take
that
into
consideration
that
that
speaks
to
derek's
point.
I
I'm
not
sure
how
would
that
be
useful
to
the
committee.
B
No,
I
do
think
and
and
jessica
sarah
jump
in
if
I'm
in
I'm
wrong
here,
but
we
are
quite
behind
schedule
as
a
as
a
committee
and
so
for
these
agencies
and
for
their
sort
of
like
fiscal
certainty.
B
I
do
think
the
sooner
we
figured
out
the
better
and
perhaps
what
that
may
mean
is
you
know
we
might
have
to
come
back
and
revisit,
but
but
I
do
think
their
time
is
of
the
essence,
given
that
where
we
are
and
that
there
are
certain
requirements
from
the
federal
funding
where
it
needs
to
be
spent
in
21,
and
so
I
think,
we're
probably
already
on
a
pretty
tight
time
frame
for
that.
Given
we
are
that
it's
october.
A
I
can
just
give
you
the
rejiggered
scores
for
books
and
breakfast
north
shore
senior
center
and
child
care
network
if
they
were
just
translated
into
a
70
point
score
just
mathematically.
So
let
me
give
that
so
jessica.
Can
you
fill
these
in
books
and
breakfast
would
be
61.37.
A
And
child
care
network
would
be
52.5.
J
A
Bump
books
and
breakfast
up
significantly,
it
would
be
just
behind
just
after
interfaith
action
and
before
ywca.
Based
on
that.
B
And
based
off
of
what
we
know
today
and
timing
and
the
amount
that
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
reduction,
which
is
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
probably
a
it-
is
not
a
significant
reduction
to
get
to
the
target.
B
Is
it
possible
that
we
look
at
potentially
these
newer
programs
where
staff
this
new
staff
has
not
been
hired
and
potentially
whyou,
where
their
applications
appear?
As
though
there's
some
duplication,
try
to
account
for
that
15,
000
to
and
and
change
and
come
up
with
recommendations
so
that
we
can
make
a
recommendation?
B
My
understanding
is,
it
still
has
to
go
to
council
there's
they're,
quite
there's
quite
a
bit,
and
I
think
that
these
agencies,
you
know,
have
been
serving
evanstonians
and
the
community
without
really
knowing
what
their
funding
is
going
to
be
for
21
in
a
pretty
uncertain
time,
and
so
I
think,
moving
forward
and
sort
of
targeting
those
and
or
potentially
I
apologize
amanda's
great
point
earlier
of
those
with
the
lowest
score,
so
on
case
management
that
those
are
the
same.
But
there
are
these
others
that
have
a
a
lower
score.
B
A
A
If
that's
something
that
you
would
like
to
do,
like
increase
the
category
of
supportive
services
to
some
number
and
then
work
back
and
and
and
subtract
as
well.
A
But
I
think
that
the
methodology
that
you
just
mentioned
you
know
looking
at
two
agencies
that
would
be
basically
starting
new
programs,
so
you
know,
would
not
be
if
they
were
funded
fully.
We
would
be
tracking
their
funding
into
2022
because
we're
not
going
to
count
it
against
work,
not
done.
We
don't
do
that
with
money,
so
that
that
gives
us
some
flexibility.
From
that
standpoint,.
B
It
would
it
be
possible
and
committee
members-
this
is
just
tonight.
This
is
just
an
idea,
and
I
don't
know
where
the
math
shakes
out
on
this,
where
we
allocate
or
make
a
recommendation
for
allocation
for
the
two
new
programs
of
potentially
30
percent
or
50
of
their
requests
sort
of
start
up
and
and
we
would
revisit
in
2022,
because
we
need
to
make
2022
allocation
recommendations
as
well,
but
and
then
potentially
look
at
a
full
request
allocation
for
the
other
agencies
and
what
that
would
do
to
the
support
services
line.
B
B
G
Yeah,
so
maybe
as
a
starting
point,
I
might
suggest
maybe
like
10
from
you
as
a
starting
point
and
maybe
going
playing
with
the
averages
on
the
on
the
four
lowest
agencies.
You
know
we
don't
have
to
go
exactly
with
those
averages.
Maybe
we
could
grant
them
more
than
the
average
but
kind
of
still
shooting
for
around
that
15,
000
and
change
that
might
be.
You
know
that
would
take
into
account
the
work.
That's
already
been
done
in
reviewing
the
because
you
is
rated
very
highly.
B
Oh
I
I
could
not
agree
more.
I
apologize
I
I
had
spoken
to
them
earlier,
but
what
I,
what
I
was
saying
sort
of
that
number
of
that
50.
It
was
just
for
the
two
new
programs
which
were
also
the
lowest
scored,
but
not
not
for
you.
B
No,
no,
no
okay,
but
maybe
we
could
do
another,
I
mean
so
that
would
be
we
would
have
if
we
did
the
approach
of
giving
these
two
new
programs,
essentially
six
months
of
funding
in
21,
which
they
probably
can't
even
spend
six
months
of
funding
in
21..
B
B
We
would
actually
have
an
additional.
You
know
forty
two
thousand
dollars
within
support
services
that
we
could
either
allocate
to
those
two
agencies.
Should
we
get
additional
information
or
if
our
grants
come
in,
grant
requests
come
in
much
higher
for
that
category,
which
we
don't
know
what
will
happen?
We
have
some
flexibility
there.
So
that's
one
approach.
We
could
then
do
amanda's
approach
to,
but
I
will
count
just.
B
Is
it
possible
to
basically
duplicate
column
f,
so
we
could
sort
of
see
the
various
options
and
you
might
not
be
able
to
I'm
so
sorry,
while
you're
figuring
out
tech,
I'm
gonna,
add,
go
to
councilman
burns
for
his
inquiry.
F
Not
just
just
to
help
us
see
if
there's
any
support,
I
want
to
say
I
I
support
that
approach.
I
think
that
makes
sense.
B
F
G
E
Jessica,
so
I
wanted
to
say
to
the
I
did:
bring
down
hack
and
metropolitan
family
services
by
50,
so
the
the
spreadsheet
does
reflect
that,
and
I
also
just
wanted
to
let
the
committee
know
that
historically,
you
have
served
about
just
under
500
participants
with
awards
of
around
70
000
between
70
and
75,
and
if
you
were
fully
funded
for
both
of
their
applications,
it
would
present
an
overage
that
that
we
would
then
want
to
see
reflected
in
their
capacity
to
to
serve
participants.
E
Well,
yep,
that's
fair!
Actually,
and
let
me.
A
One
is
depth
of
service,
which
is
you
know
like
and
and
if
they
are
were
putting
they've
always
had
robust
case
management,
but
if
more
residents
or
households
are
getting
robust
case
management
that
would
justify
more
funding,
because
it's
a
more
in-depth
service
over
a
longer
period
of
time
than
just
say,
the
after-school
sort
of
safety
net
services
which
really
are
giving-
and
I'm
oversimplifying
this
obviously,
but
where
a
number
of
children,
school-age
children,
actually
all
the
way
up
through
high
school,
have
places
to
go
after
school
and
when
and
and
get
help
and
support
and
homework,
and
you
know
just
socialization
and
all
the
benefits
of
being
in
after
school
programs.
A
So
we'd
have
to
look
at
how
how
that
works
out
in
terms
of
the
numbers
served
in
both
of
those
programs.
Kind
of
against
the
goal
is
not
to
if
we're
doing,
overall
increases
in
funding,
we
hope
to
see
increases
of
those
two
types
of
services.
Does
that
make
sense?
A
Yes,
thank
you.
So
much
and
one
consideration
would
be
to
say
again
provide
some
funding,
obviously
funding
them.
If
you
don't
want
to
fund
a
full
level,
we
could
work
with
them
more
and
and
be
able
to
come
back
and
answer
those
questions.
B
Wonderful
that
that's
thank
you
for
highlighting
all
of
that
and
jessica.
It's
you
have
your
hand
raised.
B
B
And
just
the
new
structure,
I
think
it's
it's
very
much
so
the
new
structure
of
how
grants
have
you
know
the
application
process.
So
with
this,
their
councilman
burns
has
already
indicated
there's
some
support.
It
gets
us
to
the
idea
that
there
is
there's
funding
for
that
social
services
support
services
line,
but
from
a
staff
recommendation
or
from
a
committee
discussion
point.
B
Should
there
be
be
further
review,
I'm
not
of
why
you
and
that
duplication
of
to
amanda's
point,
maybe
that
10
mark
or
something
along
those
lines,
or
do
we
go
with
the
full
application
or
allocation
and
have
staff
work
with
the
agency
to
ensure
that
access
is
expanded
to
to
this
amount.
E
Yeah
staff
would
definitely
work
with
the
agency
to
understand
the
discrete
population
served
and
I
think
we
would
come
back
to
the
committee
with
with
reports.
We
would
do
that
for
all
all
of
the
applicants
and
then
you
know
it
would
just
be
up
to
the
committee
to
use
that
information
moving
forward.
I'm
sorry,
maybe.
B
B
So
I
think
I
had
made
the
recommendation
for
sort
of
where
the
allocations
sit
today
or
sit
right
now
at
this
moment,
any
further
changes
or
recommendations,
or
would
the
committee
like
to
move
forward
with
how
this
stands
at
the
moment.
G
I
don't
know
I
don't
want
to
be
nitpicky
here,
but
just
looking
through
the
you
know
our
report,
the
summary
report,
I
can't
help
but
just
kind
of
hone
in
a
little
bit
on
the
north
shore
senior
center,
that
you
know
only
10
of
those
clients
are
evanston
residents
and
48
of
whom
are
people
of
color
and
they
were
sort
of
lower
on
the
list.
And
I
just
wonder
if
you
know
gosh,
I
I
mean
I
would.
I
want.
G
If
I
don't
know,
if
maybe
there's
some
wiggle
room
there,
but
I
don't
know,
I
don't
want
to
be
the
naysayer
either
so.
B
No,
I
think
you
raised
a
good
point
about
a
lot,
a
low.
B
Yeah
just
a
thought.
So
would
you
be
making
a
recommendation
amanda
like
potentially
you
know
a
90
allocation
for
for
them,
or
was
there
some
percentage?
You
had
in
mind.
G
I
didn't
have
a
specific
percentage,
but-
and
I
know
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
cut,
but
it
does
seem
like
in
terms
of
equity.
Maybe
that
is
something
that
we
should
take
into
account.
So.
F
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
say:
have
we
reached
consensus
on
funding
h.a.c.c
and
mfs
at
50?
Are
we
all
there.
F
F
Okay,
so
I
don't
know
what
that
lisa
said,
I
don't
know
what
our
goal
is.
Are
we
are
we
trying
to
we're
we're
seeing
where
there's
opportunities
for
reductions
that
makes
sense
in
general,
but
also
to
the
plan.
H
F
B
F
B
Sorry
go
right
ahead:
172
662
for
the
support
services
based
off
of
those
reductions,
but
you're
absolutely
right.
I
think
that
any
reduction
for
safety,
net
services
or
case
management
would
increase
what
the
committee
would
have
for
allocation
for
support
services
or
you
could
go.
We
could
go
back
and
revisit
initial
allocations
for
the
other
two
categories,
so
I
think
to
so
for
amanda's
point.
If
perhaps
we
don't
get
north
shore
senior
center,
the
full
30
000
they
requested.
B
What
that
would
do
is
actually
give
the
committee
more
room
within
the
support
services,
but
potentially
to
increase
funding
to
some
of
those
organizations
of
which
we
don't
have
a
great
line
of
sight
into
how
much
they're
going
to
ask
for.
F
Yeah,
so
I
I
agree
with
amanda,
I
think
we,
the
criterion
expectations,
should
be
strict
enough
where
everyone,
you
know,
doesn't
always
meet
the
expectations
and
adjustments
are
made,
and
I
and
I
do
think
that
serving
evanston
residents
is
important.
F
There
are
some
other
criteria
which
I'll
mention
now,
because
I
think
it's
it's
in
line,
but
we
can
address
it
later,
but
agency
there
was.
There
was
a
note
that
it
said
this
particular
agency
recognized
that
staff
demograph
demographics
do
not
reflect
population
serve.
F
You
know
moving
forward,
that's
something
that
I
would
really
like
us
to.
You
know,
and
you
know
enforce
as
much
as
we
can
that's
important
and
and
also
there
was
another
one
agencies
requesting
funding
may
work
in
partnership
with
other
agencies.
I
I
would
love
to
see
how
we
can
enforce
that
a
lot
more
strict,
you
know
be
more
strict
on
the
enforcement
of
that
as
well.
I
think
that's
important
that
collaboration
that
communication.
I
think
we
should.
We
should
move
more
towards
requiring
that
in
the
future.
F
But
again,
that's
that's
for
for
a
future
discussion
but
amanda.
I
I
agree
with
with
your
point.
B
And
I
I
just
agree
councilman
burns
with
your
with
your
points
as
well
of
going
forward
as
we
think
of
scoring,
as
we
think
of
what
we
prioritize
as
a
committee
serving
evidence
in
residence
having
staff
reflecting
the
community
of
which
they're
serving
and
then
also
that
collaboration.
B
We
all
know
that
none
of
these
services
are
going
to
be
successful
if
they're
trying
to
do
this
in
the
silo
and
so
really
encouraging-
and
you
know,
requiring
collaboration-
is
going
to
be
critical
if
we're
going
to
see
real
outcomes.
So
I
think
that's
something
we
all
should,
as
we
think
for
next
steps
and
and
what
does
scoring
look
like
really
hold
hold
those
top
of
mind.
B
So
we
have
jessica,
did
reduce
the
north
shore
senior
center
to
90
percent,
which
then
increased
what
we
would
have
for
support
services,
bringing
us
a
little
bit
higher
275
000
662
for
that
any
other
recommendations
or
changes.
Or
are
we
ready
to
sort
of
begin
voting
on
these
individual
items?.
B
D
A
What
we
have
done
historically,
when
we've
reached
a
point
where
we
think
everyone's
in
agreement,
is
we
read
through
them
and
so
that
everybody's
clear?
And
if
there
is
no
disagreement,
then
they
can
all
be
passed
in
one
motion.
F
H
F
I
would
I
would
support
a
recommendation,
said
the
very
least,
with
north
shore
senior
center
award
them
at
the
level
at
the
average
level.
B
That
makes
more
sense
councils
win
burns.
I
threw
out
the
90
number,
but
I
think
your
your
approach
is
more
logical.
A
Yes,
okay,
so
I'll
start
with
case
management,
youth
and
opportunity,
united
for
case
management,
fifty
seven
thousand
six
hundred
and
ninety
three
dollars
james
b,
moran
center
for
case
management.
Seventy
five
thousand
dollars
infant
welfare
society
for
case
management
for
the
team,
teen
baby
nursery
thousand
dollars,
family
focus
case
management
hundred
and
twenty
five
thousand
housing
authority
of
cook
county
case
management
for
pearlman
and
walter
buildings.
Thirty
five
thousand
metropolitan
family
services
22
500.
A
moving
into
this,
so
a
total
category
total
for
the
category
of
390
193
dollars;
safety,
net
services;
connections
for
the
homeless,
for
drop
in
outreach
services,
150
000,
youth
opportunity,
united
for
safety,
net
services,
63
427
dollars,
james
moran
center
for
legal
services,
fifty
thousand
dollars,
meals
on
wheels
for
home,
delivered
meals,
thirty
thousand
dollars,
interfaith
action
for
the
cold
weather,
shelter,
forty
two
thousand
five
hundred
dollars;
ywc
evanston
north
shore
for
their
domestic
violence
and
other
services;
thirty,
five
thousand
dollars
peer
services
for
substance,
abuse
treatment;
ninety
nine
thousand
five
hundred
books
and
breakfast
for
the
before
school
program;
45
000,
north
shore
senior
center
for
their
social
services,
programs,
23,
750,
child
care,
network
of
evanston
learning
together,
sixty
three
thousand
four
hundred
safety
net
category
subtotal
of
six
hundred
and
two
thousand
five
hundred
and
seventy
seven
dollars,
and
that
leaves
a
total
of
to
scroll
up
a
tiny
bit.
A
B
J
E
I
amanda
hi
cheri
hi
samantha
aye
councilmember
burns.
H
E
A
A
And
these
the
recommendations
of
the
committee
will
be
going
to
council
no
later
than
the
first
meeting
in
june.
In
november,
we
may
try
to
expedite
by
going
through
apw
or
pnd,
to
actually
get
the
get
it
to
counsel
faster.
We
will
confer
with
our
management
to
see
what
seems
the
most
appropriate
route.
We
have
that
flexibility
on
this.
B
We've
got
all
right
and
then
we
go
to
the
next.
We
have
a
few
more
items
on
the
agenda
approval
of
vice
chair,
so
I
believe
we
have
a
a
chair,
but
we
do
not
yet
have
a
vice
chair
and
jessica.
I'm
or
sarah
I
can
nominate.
Is
that
correct
all
right?
I
would
like
to
nominate
derek
to
service
vice
chair.
B
J
E
D
B
Wonderful
right
and
congratulations,
derek
and
with
that
we'll
move
to
approval
of
the
meeting
minutes
for
september
28
2021
the
meeting
minutes
were
in
the
packet.
Does
anybody
have
any
edits
or
comments,
or
are
we
ready
to
approve
the
minutes.
B
J
E
G
C
B
You
thank
you
and
with
that
then
we
move
to
public
comment.
Do
we
need
a
motion
to
open
for
public
comment?
B
No,
no,
all
right
do
we
have
anybody
that
would
like
to
comment
from
the
public
today.
A
K
Okay,
good
evening,
everyone
I,
as
a
leader
of
one
of
the
agencies
you
voted
on
tonight.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
all
for
getting
us
this
far
in
the
process.
As
amanda
said,
those
funds
are
very
needed
and
we're
all
very
grateful
for
you
all
getting
us
here.
So
thank
you.
So
much.
A
We
have
no
other
hands
raised.
We
had
a
written
public
comment
submitted
that
actually
refers
to
a
meeting
that
this
committee
is
not
involved
with
and
we're
not
sure
that
it's
a
public
meeting.
It
was
a
pub
a
meeting
scheduled
by
one
of
the
other
council
members,
and
we
were
going
to
contact
that
council
member
with
information
about
that.
B
E
B
I
had
trouble
hearing
councilman
reed
was
that
on
my
connection
or
potentially
it
was
on
his
okay,
so
councilman
reed.
I
believe
we
were
trying
to
make
a
point
or
a
comment.
It
must
have
been.
It
was
not
clear,
but
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
moment
to
introduce
our
newest
committee
member
sheree
jessica
was
about
to
do
that
and
then
perhaps
your
connection
will
be
better
and
we'll
be
able
to
hear
your
points.
B
I
Delay
just
move
on,
I
was
just
making
the
point
that
when
there's
no
further
business,
there
doesn't
need
to
be
a
motion.
We
can
just
move
on.
B
Perfect,
wonderful,
but
before
we
do
that,
we
will
have
sheree
introduced
and
welcome
to
the
process.
B
Yes,
I
think
I
think
we
all
did
at
the
beginning
when.
H
Yeah
no
worries,
I'm
a
licensed
clinical
professional
counselor
in
the
state
of
illinois
and
in
texas,
and
I've
been
a
victim
resident
for
about
20
years
now.
F
B
All
right
seeing
no
further
business.
Thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
effort
today
and
thank
you
for
attendees
and,
of
course,
organizations
who
continue
to
serve
evidence
in
residence.
We
appreciate
all
you
do
for
our
community
and
have
a
wonderful
thursday
evening.