Ending Community Homelessness Organization

0:00 [ Music ] >> This webinar is being recorded and summarized. >> Good morning, everyone. Welcome to March 10th meeting of ECHO, ending community homelessness organization. We will go ahead and start with our welcome and introductions. I'm Glenn Young. I chair the committee and I serve on the Clark County Council, and we'll go ahead and start this direction in the room, and then we'll go online. >> Good morning, Jordan Bogie, senior policy analyst supporting the Clark County Council and the county manager's office. >> Good morning, Michael Torres, Clark County Community Services. >> Good morning, Cessney Finney-Jones, council for the homeless CEO. >> Sunny Winder, council for the homeless.

0:59 >> Good morning, my name's Adam Beck. I'm a sergeant with the sheriff's office. >> Morning. >> Jamie Spinelli, city of Vancouver. >> Ty Stober, city of Vancouver. >> Good morning. Diana Perez, city of Vancouver, vice chair for ECHO. >> Andy. >> Good morning, I'm calling from home. I'm Marilyn Burke, I sit on Canvas City Council. >> Andy Silver, do you want to introduce yourself? >> Morning, Andy Silver, Vancouver Housing Authority. >> Katie. >> Good morning, Katie Favela, Ridgefield City Council. >> David Shook. >> Morning, Dave Shook, director of Jail Services.

1:57 >> And Victoria, I know you just got on, but we're currently in introductions if you want to introduce yourself. >> Good morning, Victoria Ferrer, city of Battleground. >> That's all we have on line here. >> Great, thank you.

2:21 [ Silence ] >> Testing. >> Testing, there we go. Thank you, Michelle. >> Oh, if one is on, the other one, yeah. >> Okay, go ahead, Councilor Perez. >> Diana Perez moves to approve the minutes. City of Vancouver, city council member. [ Silence ] >> Second, Ferrer, Battleground.

3:19 >> Great, it's been moved and seconded, any changes, any? >> Just a question on the minutes. I wanted to make sure that the CAB presentation was forwarded to all the ECHO members. >> Where were you looking at? >> First page, there was an action under -- well, not an action, but on the CAB update, we just requested that the CAB presentation be shared with all the ECHO members. >> Just wanted to make sure that was done. >> Requested the CAB presentation to be forwarded to all ECHO members. Oh, I believe it was, but I will double check to make sure that that got sent out. >> And if it wasn't, I'll send it to you, I think it was. >> Great, thank you for following up on that. Okay, all those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed?

4:16 Motion passes, thank you. So, moving on, we'll start our updates and report back on previous action items, and we'll start with the systems analysis outreach and approval process, and I will let Jordan brief us on that. >> Thank you, Chair. So, after last month's meeting, we had approval of the systems analysis outreach process. We shared the letter out with everyone to share with their individual jurisdictions. My understanding is that Vancouver has approved participation in the systems analysis, and I believe Battleground has as well. I got some information from them. So, we just want to check in with the group to see if there are any other jurisdictions that have made any progress on that, and if not, if folks would like any support in getting in front of their councils, I know, I believe, Councilor Perez and Councilor Fuentes, who's not able to be here today,

5:14 but they've volunteered to meet with any of the city councils that would like a presentation on the process and on what we're thinking for the systems analysis. >> Ridgefield City Council is in. >> Ridgefield has approved it? >> Yes. >> Fantastic, thank you. That's great news. We just have a couple more, then. Great, keep us up to date on that as you work with your jurisdictions. Anything else, Jordan? >> That's all I had on that, and I'll follow up with some of the other city folks in some updates after this to make sure that we're moving forward, and I know there are a few folks who aren't in attendance today, and we'll double check with them to make sure they're moving forward. >> Great, thank you. Okay, moving on to severe weather, Sunny and Cessney. >> This is Sunny Wonder, Council for the Homeless. We're just exiting severe weather.

6:12 Last night, we had some potential for snow and cold temperatures, so we had called severe weather. Otherwise, we're gearing up for season changes, just recognizing I think last time I provided an update, just acknowledging snowpack is very low, and that is likely to impact our fire season, so we are really wanting to, as early as possible, digging into that process, what that looks like, what our response is, so that's where the severe weather task force is going to be focusing next once we get past the cold severe weather. So fingers crossed that we'll have a relatively mild rest of the March, rest of March.

7:00 >> Thank you for that, any other comments or questions on that before we move forward? >> Chair, this is Diana Perez, City of Vancouver. I just wanted to go back to the systems analysis outreach and talk to our CHAMIS representative. If I understand correctly, I thought CHAMIS had approved earlier participating in the system analysis, can you clarify? >> Yes, Councilor Perez, when I, my first meeting I came with Mayor Hogan, and we kind of agreed between the two of us, but I just made a note to myself, we have council on Monday, and so I'll try to get that on the agenda. Well, I will get that on the agenda and get formal approval. I just sent an email to Jordan asking for if there was any documentation about what CHAMIS's contribution would be, because I must have overlooked it, and I apologize for that. >> Okay, that's okay. Thank you for that clarification, and all the contributions are in that letter

8:00 that was found at the last ECHO meeting. So there's a table that shows everybody's contribution. Thank you, Marilyn. >> Great. Anything else? Okay. All right, well, CAB update. Diana, do we have anything to bring to ECHO this month? >> Not this month. CAB hasn't met, so they're just continuing with the community needs assessment. Anything you want to add, Michael? >> No. There'll be a meeting next month, and I'm sure we'll report on whatever takes place during that meeting. >> Yeah, they meet every other month. >> Great. Thank you. Boy, we're blowing through this agenda quickly. We might want to slow down a little bit. So honorarium update, Vanessa and Matt, could you give us an update on where we're at with that? >> So, Chair, I know Vanessa is out.

8:59 I don't know if Michael might be able to -- >> Good morning. Vanessa is out this morning. We have completed a staff report and prepared a update to a contract that we have with the Community Foundation of Southwest Washington to conduct the honorariums. The staff report is going to go before council this next Tuesday, the 17th, to get council approval to make that update to an existing contract with the Community Foundation as a statement of work so that we can move forward with the honorariums. >> Excellent, and do we have any inkling about the timeline of when we might be able to get those positions filled or at least go out with the invitation for people to apply? >> I'm not -- I don't believe Community Services is directly involved in that, but my understanding --

9:56 and Michelle might have more updates -- but my understanding is that the advertising for the position has gone out, and I believe there were a couple applications that you already had on file that were being looked at. >> Jake is actually handing all of the ones that are coming in. I can ask for an update and send it out to everybody later if that's okay today. >> Excellent. >> Okay. >> Okay. I didn't realize that it had been sent out already, released, so that's great news. Okay, let's -- yeah, go ahead, Diana. >> Since we're on the topic -- Diana Perez, City of Vancouver, City Councilmember -- wanted to think about the onboarding or the topic of having a small group to folks that could step in and assist with any application overview or sitting down with the representatives to help

10:55 with the onboard or come up with an onboarding process, mentoring, shadowship type. >> On that Sesame, Finney, Jones, Council for the Homeless, on that same topic, what's the selection process? >> So there's only two applications that have come in, correct? >> Again, I'm not exactly sure. I apologize. I was out last week, so I will get that update for you, but I do believe -- and Jake, I know that you're listening. If you can send me a quick teams and let me know, I will go ahead and relay that to the rest of the group here. >> Yeah, we'll need that same group to be able to go over the applications if we get quite a bit, but it goes back to what the timeline is, if we had a deadline on that or not. We might need to put -- have more outreach after we find out more about an update from Jake.

11:54 >> Sure. >> The other thing I want to clarify is I think we had a couple folks who were involved in the application process a few years ago, and so I think those are the two folks that we're really talking about. I don't know that those are new applicants, but I know we were going to specifically reach out to a couple folks who expressed interest previously, but we'll get an update on that and organized. >> That's where the couple applications comes from. >> I believe so. >> All right. Great. Thank you. Anything else on that before we move forward? Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and move to our next item, which we are going to be discussing, the law enforcement panel and planning around it, which is going to be next month. We have made all of the invitations at this point, correct? >> We have made a number of the invitations, but I think that's something that I want to discuss with folks today.

12:54 So I know -- I believe we've got pinned down officially. I know -- I think we've got some folks -- Ridgefield Police Department, Vancouver Police Department. We've got some fire representatives from the Clark Cowlitz Fire Department. I know Dave is online for the jail, and I believe Tina Jones from Camas is on board based on previous conversations with Mayor Hogan. We need to, I think, still finalize out invitations, Battleground and Washougal, and I have had -- I think just I had shared a note with the sheriff and talked to him briefly about it, but I know we've got Sergeant Beck here as well, so wanted to touch base with the sheriff's office to make sure we have the right folks in the room for that. And so I'll be following up after this meeting via email to make sure we have those invitations out for next month

13:54 and so that everybody's ready to go but would welcome any thoughts on the invitation or any updates that I haven't heard yet from the group. Would be great to know that now, and I'll pause there, and then I think we'll get into a little bit of the questions and making sure that we have the right language for those as well after that. >> Yeah, let's go ahead and bring up those questions. I don't know if you can make that a little bit bigger. There we go. Counselor Ferrer. >> Thank you, Chair. A question for Jordan in regards to Chief of Police here in Battleground. I tried reaching out to him yesterday, missed his phone call but if I can aid to ensure his presence will be here for that meeting, would you like me --

14:51 because I'm supposed to call him after this. So would you like me to have him email you in a response? Are you looking for a phone call from him? What would you prefer, sir? >> An email would be great. Thank you, Counselor. Just confirming his attendance and that he or somebody from Battleground PD can attend, that would be great. >> Well done. Thanks. >> So I would suggest we take just a couple minutes right here and let everybody read the questions real quick and then I'll just open it up for discussion. >> I will say that I have read the questions and I loved every single one of them but I know that we have to reduce it to only three to five. So I think there's a way that we could probably link some of them together. I'd be curious to know what Mr. Shook has to say since he'll be one of the panelists when he has a chance to read it.

15:51 But the only one that I feel like we could potentially reduce after reading them was maybe number six and then connecting maybe the ones that might be a little repetitive in the sense that they're looking for a collaboration between L&E and policy makers, what are some gaps in the policies, what can policy -- like anything that has to do with policy makers, maybe there's a way that we could put them together so we can reduce the amount of questions would be the only input I have on these, Chair. >> Thank you. >> Diana Perez, City of Vancouver. One of the things that I brought up in looking at these questions once we identify, do some lumping,

16:48 reorganizing, thank you, I think that's a great suggestion, was to simplify the questions to have law enforcement perspective or lens on the questions so that they're better clarified. I know that we could have Tyler Chavis from the City of Vancouver take a look at him and he provided some, like a lens, not changing the intent of the question but better able to clarify into a language or vocabulary that's easily understood as a law enforcement panel just because of the culture in law enforcement and policy maker culture. >> Thanks, Councillor, I will say I just got an email from Jamie, she did have a chance to check in with Officer Chavis to get his feedback

17:43 and so we don't have -- these are the original questions that were sent out to the group but I did get that email just now from her so maybe if it makes sense to folks we can just go like question by question, we can look at the original question as drafted, we can hear Officer Chavis' proposed edit and then I think we can get any feedback from the group on each of those questions, make sure we have the language that we like and then the other item that I'd like to have the group kind of coalesce around if we can is which are your favorite questions, right, can we prioritize a little bit because just given the number of folks that we have and really we have an hour for this section of the panel conversation and I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't able to get through more than five or six questions in that time just given time constraints.

18:40 All right, I'm seeing nods all around so I'm going to start here with question one. So question one, what is your typical response to a call involving those who are unsheltered or homeless and some examples of that could be someone who is camping on public property or a person going through a mental health crisis and then the question or the edit that we got from Officer Chavis was officers when you respond to a routine call for service about someone camping on public property, what does your response look like, what steps do you take to handle these types of calls? >> I like it. >> Yeah, I also, Marilyn from CHAMAS, I like that edit. >> I'm fine with that edit as long as we make that a part two, we don't move away from the mental health crisis because a mental health crisis

19:38 in a parking lot or in a store is I feel going and I'm not law enforcement so I don't mean to suggest that I know any better here but I as an individual who's, I'm looking at someone camping on public property could potentially be something completely different and look totally different and maybe handled differently than just somebody who's going through a mental health crisis which could be potentially more threatening and dangerous than just somebody that's camping on public property. So just to clarify and maybe I misunderstood the amendment that he made to his question is it sounded like he wanted to clarify the part on the public property but I didn't hear so forgive me if he was, is he still going

20:36 to be focused on the mental health crisis aspect? >> Victoria, sorry, this is Jamie Spinelli from the City of Vancouver. So Tyler actually separated that question out into two questions so there's a separate one right after this one for mental health. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, so I can read that now for the group. So the second question is or would be officers like the question about camping in public spaces, what does a routine response to a mental health crisis call look like? What steps do you take to resolve these types of calls? So they would essentially be splitting question one into two parts. How do folks feel about that? >> And this is Sunny, counsel for the homeless. Just to clarify is the question still aimed at homelessness or a mental health crisis in totality like trying to capture

21:34 because everybody, many people experience mental health crises in public like it's informed on are you doing it behind a closed door in a private space versus out in public. So that might be an important point of clarification that if I was asked the question I would be asking for clarification. >> Yeah, I agree with that. I think we need to, because I mean I would imagine somebody that's housed and somebody that's homeless, it's probably much different process that they go through and handle it significantly different. So yeah, maybe we could just add in their specificity about when they're responding and the individual is experiencing homelessness. >> I have something to add to that. My question though to that is how do you know somebody's experiencing homelessness when a police officer arrives on the scene?

22:34 I would think that they're not going to be made aware of their living situation just because they're having a mental health crisis. They're going to have to react. And then yeah, I would, David Shook has his hand raised so I'll be quiet and let him speak. >> Yes, yes. >> Not at all. >> Chair, maybe Sergeant Beck can expand on this as well. I think these are very unique different questions and processes that law enforcement go through. And as Jamie said, not everybody who's homeless may have an mental illness and vice versa. And again, we in law enforcement, and again many years in it, we dealt with those differently. And so I would just ask is ECHO, right, which is about homeless, is this the right space to go into the rabbit holes of the mental illness components?

23:31 Because I don't think we have any mental health groups that have been invited to this conversation to be a part or at least hear what's going on. So anyways, I'm just curious. This is a huge topic, all these are huge topics. And so I'm wondering is this the right space to have both of these conversations or should we prioritize one and then come back for a second one? I don't know. Just throwing that out there. >> This is Jamie Spinelli again from the City of Vancouver. Important distinction, and I think that in my experience, there's less of a difference in how officers respond to mental health crisis, addressing the mental health crisis whether they're housed or unhoused, that's pretty much the same. The difference is what options someone has to resolve that crisis. >> I think this is an important discussion.

24:30 I do think it has merit in continuing and having that because part of this is trying to identify those gaps. And if there are gaps that can be identified, I think that would be important. Somebody else, I think raise their hand. Katie. >> Hi, yeah, Katie, City of Richfield. The point of inviting the Clark-Calitz Fire Department is because they have a CARES program, which is a co-responder program that addresses some mental health issues when police go out and need -- they identify that this is out of their wheelhouse or not something that they can provide. So I absolutely do think that this is an appropriate question to ask during this time and that we will have the appropriate people on the panel to, you know, give some perspective into that question or that topic. >> So maybe we could fine-tune that question a little bit.

25:30 Instead of just saying an individual that's homeless, maybe state it -- how do they handle a mental health care or mental health crisis when, you know, the individual does not have stable housing available? How do you handle it differently from somebody? Or where are the gaps? I know it's -- >> Cessna, council for the homeless, like service coordination? Like what are your -- what is your process of service coordination for someone who's experiencing a mental health crisis that is unhoused? >> Yeah, I would think either that or just asking them what -- if someone is unhoused and is having a mental health crisis or experiencing mental health challenges during that call. I'm trying to think what's the best way to word that.

26:28 Are there challenges to resolving those calls versus, you know, people who are housed? Or what challenges? Or how do you -- how do you respond to a call when that's an added kind of element? Something like that. >> This is Katie, City of Richfield. I was -- I sent Jordan some edits that I had of narrowing it down. And I don't know if this would be helpful, but I'm kind of reading question one and two and blended them together. The question would be, when responding to people who are unhoused, for example, someone camping on public property or experiencing a mental health crisis, how easy is it for law enforcement to connect them with services and what barriers exist? Because then they can, you know, speak to their specific process and their jurisdiction, and then we can also have the mental health component added to it.

27:23 And then we have now just combined two questions together, narrowing the questions down. >> Sure. >> All right. >> Go ahead, Ty. >> Ty Stover, City of Vancouver. Thank you for that. I feel like that's a separate question. Because that's the response, and I think there's a question that's about walking into a situation, and there's a question about resolving the situation. And I think those are two different things. And you have to walk through the first part before you can even get to the second part. And so I feel like that, how you stated it, jumps over the first part.

28:21 And so great is the second question, but I'm concerned about deleting that first question about what's that initial contact. >> I would also mention that number three on Tyler's edits is what are your biggest challenges related to calls involving those who are unhoused and/or experiencing a mental health crisis. So that kind of gets at the other part of what we're talking about. And I would also say that one of the reasons that he wrote these, the way that he did very kind of methodically is because that is often how officers work through a call. They have policies and procedures that lay out kind of step-by-step, this is what we do. And that's what we're trying to understand, I think, is how do each of your jurisdictions respond to these things. And for law enforcement, it is often methodical. >> Is there a way that we could get that email up on the screen?

29:19 >> Yes, let me send that to Michelle now. >> Great, that would be helpful. Oh, Cessney, go ahead. >> Hi, Cessney again, Council for the Homeless. I know we're like kind of moving from one to two to three as far as questions are concerned, and I just wanted to suggest and two, not to use the word easily. That suggests that it is easy for law enforcement to connect and this just feels suggestive to me. So just saying how does law enforcement connect people if we're going to state that in that way, just removing the word easily. >> Okay. >> I think what we're going to need to do is we'll just continue going through these and then I think we're just going to need to rely on Jordan to kind of make sense of the conversation that we've had

30:15 and then he could send a round of emails with the final draft. Does everybody agree with that? >> Oh, great, we have them on the screen here. I'd say put them both on there, but we wouldn't be able to read either. No, I can see it at least. Can everybody see it? Oh, Tyler's are? Oh, yeah, those ones are, but these are from Tyler, right? Okay. Oh, yeah, I see what you're saying, yeah. Yeah. All right, so where are we at now, number three? What are your biggest challenges related to calls involving those who are unhoused and/or experiencing a mental health crisis?

31:21 [ Background Sounds ] >> Cessna, this is Dana. So, there's your comment about how easily here it was edited to how easy or difficult. Does that address a little bit of your -- >> If I was writing it, I wouldn't put it in there. >> How easy or difficult? >> As easy or difficult. I would just ask for what is the experience, what is the process. >> And I think that's the point is the process.

32:18 Is there a process, and is the process too challenging, too difficult? >> Exactly, because you're going to find that out through them answering the question if it's an easy process or if it's a difficult process or if there's no process at all. >> Victoria has her hand raised. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, I'm looking at these new questions. Honestly, I don't think I like them as much as the other ones, but I haven't had a chance to look at all of them thus far. I have problems with four just because it's asking how easy or difficult. Do you find it to refer someone to community court versus citing them to district court? Is that really the role of the police officer to do that? I mean, we're in battleground, so we're very new, or at least I'm new to community court. But up here in our end,

33:16 I don't think it's the police officer's role to refer them. It's up to staff and I think even the judge. Can anybody fill me in on that one? Does county do it differently? Am I understanding things wrong? >> Sergeant Beck with the sheriff's office. Yeah, we do have the ability to cite them into court. So if we respond to a call where somebody is committing a violation and we feel like they would benefit from going to the community court versus a criminal court process, we can cite them into community court. >> This is Jamie Spinelli from the City of Vancouver. Yeah, Victoria, it is primarily law enforcement that cites into community court down here. There is an option for court administrators or district court to see a case come through and see that it might be more appropriate or beneficial

34:15 for somebody to go through community court so they can send it over in that way too. But it is almost entirely law enforcement here that does that. >> Okay, thank you for clarifying. May I add then to this group to consider in a future meeting to then bring out community courts from the surrounding areas in Clark County. We're getting to hear the police officers. It would be great to have something like this moving forward for then on the community court side and hearing all stakeholders. >> Marilyn from Chemis. I do concur with that request. I need to learn more personally. If anyone else would find that helpful, I would appreciate it.

35:05 >> Jared, it sounds like we have some learning to do also on processes within this bigger picture, and one of them is the community court and how that's done countywide. So maybe what we could do is put that in a separate category but also invite stakeholders to just begin the discussion around law enforcement, and what these questions do is just highlight where we need to fill in some understanding and better understand this, the whole law enforcement world. >> Chair. >> Marilyn from Chemis. I would also add, I am not, I would be curious as to how many municipalities use community court. I don't believe that Chemis does.

36:02 We had a presentation at a council meeting, and I don't believe that Chemis does use that, and so does everybody. I mean, do Chemis residents all have the opportunity, whether or not that's supported by our council? I just don't know. I'm revealing my ignorance on this topic right now. >> This is Jamie from the City of Vancouver. So Battleground has their own community court, and then Clark County and Vancouver partnered for the community court that exists here, and that is available to CCSO for whatever areas they support, and then Vancouver Police Department. So I don't believe Chemis, Ridgefield, Washougal have those -- >> Ridgefield has community court with Battleground. >> Okay. Thanks. >> So it looks like Chemis --

37:01 >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Chemis and Washougal don't have any option at this point. >> Yeah, I think it would be great if we could do something here. Maybe that could help our other jurisdictions like Chemis who aren't aware of community court, and they would be able to see the success of it and potentially bring something back to their municipalities. >> I think community court is a huge tool, and we certainly could spend a whole meeting on it. There's no question about it. >> Yeah. And, Chair, I just also want to say, just based on the previous conversations we've had about the panel and how that kind of fits into the group's larger goals, you know, what I've heard from folks is that this law enforcement panel is really the start of a larger conversation. You as policymakers are trying to understand the landscape around homelessness in Clark County. And so while we're, you know,

38:00 the law enforcement perspective is really important, but what I have also heard and what I have in my notes is that future conversations involving community court programs, bringing the jail back for a full conversation really just on what's happening in the jail, having a broader conversation with our fire and EMS folks. They will have some representation on this panel, but I think there was a desire to dig in a little bit deeper with those folks as well. I know we've talked about engaging with CRRSA. I'm not sure if they're going to be able to come to this panel, but in the future, how do our emergency response services fit into this as well as, you know, continuing to engage with service providers and housing folks as well. So we're kind of looking at the whole continuum, and so I just want to hopefully help folks feel comfortable at least from what I'm hearing is that, you know, we're trying to target this particular conversation towards the experience of law enforcement,

38:56 but it certainly will not be the final word on what you all want to hear about the landscape around homelessness, and we'll be setting up as many meetings as we can in future sessions to help everyone get the full picture to help you all as policymakers. >> Thank you, Jordan.

39:20 >> So if folks are okay, maybe we'll keep moving through the question list? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Can you scroll back down? Sorry, we were talking, I'm on five. >> So what I've heard so far is, so from the original list, we had question one, we kind of wanted to kind of split up a little bit between camping and folks who are unhoused having a mental health crisis, what those responses look like, and the steps that are taken to resolve those calls, and then moving on to the community court question, really trying to move away from how easy is it for you to do something to what is the process to refer someone to community court versus citing them into district court, and are there changes you would suggest to improve the referral process for officers? And then on Officer Chaver's list, that kind of gets us

40:15 through four, and the questions are starting to diverge a little bit, so I guess if I'm just looking at the ones that are up on the screen right now, if we're looking at number five, then are you aware of non-law enforcement resources for those who are unsheltered? If so, how easy or difficult is it for you to connect those in need with the services, and those could include mental health, outreach, minor medical, transportation, et cetera? >> Just listening to the comments about removing those kind of judgment words of easy or difficult, that could be reworded to, if so,

41:12 do you know how to connect those in need? In what ways do you connect those in need? >> I might also ask if there are challenges in doing that. >> Yeah, I think it is important for us to identify the struggles that they are having. I mean, it helps us. I mean, that's the entire intent behind the RFP is identifying the barriers and the things that are preventing the system from functioning properly, so I do think we do definitely need to identify what their experience is and how that, whether it's a challenging process or not. >> Yeah, and I would say that's why there are officers assigned to the HART team to begin with is

42:11 because it takes really very dedicated time to be able to do all that's needed, and for officers or deputies who are call responsive, that is often what's prohibitive about attempting to kind of take those steps is that it takes a long time. There's not an immediate response. It's a difficult process to navigate, things like that, and so I think that's what we're attempting to find here is for kind of all officers broadly or deputies. What is -- are there challenges to doing that, right? >> Yeah, and let me just withdraw one of this. I don't like asking questions that can be answered yes or no, and so my first question was do you know how? Okay, strike that suggestion because I much prefer that in what ways do you because it's a positive presupposition that they do, and then also I agree with adding back in something about,

43:09 you know, the challenges of that. >> I would add to that too. I would -- since this is to educate everybody who sits on ECHO who isn't aware of the process instead of maybe saying which you're going to be removing the easy language, but instead of how easy or difficult, I would say what is the process for L&E to refer someone to community court versus citing them to district court, and what are the challenges that you face to refer them? >> Chair. >> Go ahead, Ty. >> Ty Stober, Vancouver. Adding on to the beginning of that, just that statement about if community court is available in your jurisdiction, and then the rest of it.

44:05 >> Any more with that question? Any more comments? Okay. All right, so taking what I've heard from folks on number 5 up here on the screen, would be editing that a little bit to say are you aware of non-law enforcement resources for those who are unsheltered, and if so, in what ways are you able to connect those in need with the services, and what are the challenges to connecting those in need to resources? And then the previous question with the community court, I've added that line about if it's available in your jurisdiction. >> I think, not to wordsmith too much, but the very first part that you said are you aware of, I think it would be maybe better

45:02 to say what services are you aware of? >> Agreed. That gets away from Kamas's yes or no questions. >> Okay, perfect. So, I've updated that. So, okay, so we've updated that question. So, then the next question, number 6 on the list on your screen is, and I think this is number 3 on your packet, although the edit a little bit, what misconceptions do citizens have about what law enforcement can do or should be doing about homelessness in our communities? >> This is Jamie. Off the bat, I would replace the word citizens with either the public or residents.

46:00 >> Thank you. I was going to say the same thing. That's a quagmire at times. Other than that, I do like this question. I think just based on my service to council, there are many misconceptions about what council can do, what cities can do, what law enforcement can do. So, I would be interested in having those delineated. >> I agree with that. I'm a little confused on what the or should be doing. So, I get that there's misconceptions out there from the public about what law enforcement can or can't do, but what they should be doing, that feels like that's a different type of question. Like it would be more about going out there and what does the public believe that public and the police officer should be doing versus the misconceptions of what they can and can't do. Am I making sense?

47:00 >> Well, this is Jamie from Vancouver. It is my experience that there are misconceptions about what officers should be doing or what law enforcement should be doing. And that includes also-- I mean, that includes the jail, that includes also just like a lot of legal stuff. I mean, a lot of comments that we get are that maybe somebody gets cited or arrested and then they're let out of jail immediately. And they should be held in jail longer. And it is often officers that kind of take the heat for that outcome when it has absolutely nothing to do with the officers.

48:14 >> All right, I should be able to edit that. I think the question around the should, how do folks-- do folks want to keep that as a piece? OK, I'm seeing nods around the room. And that may not come up for everyone. Some people may just talk about the-- what they can do or they-- we may, you know, as we kind of-- I'm also envisioning, right, as we go down the panel questions, some folks may have very similar answers. So, some folks may be able to talk about the process as it exists currently. Some people may be able to talk about what they're hearing from community members about what they think they should be doing, so. >> Well, and at this point, we probably won't even have time because you think-- you said three to five and we're already on question six. So, we might not even get to this point. >> You got to prioritize. >> It is-- yeah, that is possible. And we'll get at the end of the question once we-- once we like the question list here, we'll try to prioritize the top questions.

49:11 So, if this one is in that top five or so, we'll make sure we include that. So, looking at question seven on this list, looking at the entire system of community care, what parts of the current system unintentionally push law enforcement into roles better suited for health or housing providers? >> Marilyn from Canvas. This question gave me pause because of the use of the word unintentional. I think if you read it without that, will parts of the current system push law enforcement into roles better suited for health or housing? I think we're making an assumption that there's not intentionality. I don't know, I just-- I don't care for qualifying words like that, unintentional, similar to our discussion above.

50:10 That's just my take on that. >> Yeah, I could agree with that. >> Looking at the other side here, what parts of the system unintentionally push? >> This is Jamie. I'm just going to throw this out here because if I were answering these questions, this is what I would say. Because I don't think that it's necessarily intentional, right, that like the city or the county doesn't have legislation that supports, you know, higher levels of care for people, right, or funding for additional services that people could go to so that officers wouldn't be responding to people outside. I don't know that that is necessarily intentional. Like it's not intentional that the system of care doesn't have 24/7 outreach at all times. That's not an intentional thing.

51:07 That's a capacity issue. Does that make sense? Because it specifically talks about the system of care. And I don't think the system works as it is funded to do.

51:31 It's just underfunded. >> So I'll just say from my perspective, I see where Councilor Burke is coming from. Jamie, I see where you're coming from as well. I think if we remove the unintentionally, we just kind of take that question off the table. We don't have to worry about what the system is designed to do and we're not asking our law enforcement officers to say, "Oh, this was an intentional policy choice of the system," and, "Oh, this is just sort of a byproduct of how the system is designed." So I think taking unintentional out, it makes that cleaner if folks feel okay about that. >> I think it's simpler and really the answer that they give us is going to tell us what needs to change. It doesn't matter whether there's intentionality or not. It's something that's identified that needs to be changed.

52:30 >> That's a good point. >> This is Diana, I agree. >> This is Michael Torres of the Clark County Community Services. I agree and I think these questions and the wording is really for the echo to the side. One thing that I still wonder with this question is when we say talking about into roles better suited for health or housing providers, that assumes that health and housing providers have roles and capacity to do those functions and situations might be created for both law enforcement and health and housing providers to fill in vacuums, not just in capacity but in actual roles.

53:29 You know, and as a somewhat unrelated example I can give is during the pandemic when the federal government pushed a lot of funding for emergency rental assistance for people who were housed that had temporarily lost employment and needed to have resources to pay rent, almost, actually, almost all of that emergency rental assistance in Clark County was provided by the homeless crisis response system even though it was going to a population that was not homeless and was not necessarily directly at risk of homelessness but they were the only ones, the only infrastructure that really existed in the community to do that function and that was largely across the state, in many cases across the nation.

54:26 So I just wanted to kind of raise the flag that because law enforcement or one component of the system may be being asked by reality of situations in front of them to do things that they're not really designed or funded to do, it doesn't mean that there's another component in the system that is necessarily designed or funded to do that thing also. There may be an actual vacuum and I understand that part of the panel and part of like the series that may come out of this is to discover what those vacuums are. They're not just capability gaps and they're not necessarily just efficiency improvements. You know, it's kind of like do we have a safety net or do we have a crisis response system and what are the limitations of the crisis response system? And I think that's part of what we're struggling through here but I just wanted to raise that flag.

55:25 >> Thank you for those comments, Michael. That is really, I think, helpful. And so I'm wondering if this isn't an open-ended question instead of, you know, I love to talk about magic wands. You know, that if you had a magic wand, what are the services you think would help-- would exist to help with this-- with these issues? >> Yeah, to prevent them from being called as the responder to something or to be able to quickly transition. >> You're not. >> Sorry. I meant what I was saying was to kind of finish

56:22 that question or that statement, to connect people to because they've had to respond or to even prevent them having to respond in the first place. That is, I think, what we're trying to get at, hopefully. >> I'd almost like to add an intentional language that asks them to think outside of the system like, you know, what gaps exist that you think somebody should need but there's nothing there. It's not a matter of supply or enough manpower but what is actually missing? And kind of like, you know, my initial thought is one example is with the jail, we don't really have an organization that's organized and set up specifically to take people and help them when they're leaving jail. So things like that, I think, would be really valuable for them to try to get them to identify those things to us.

57:20 >> This is Katie. I'm going to put my licensed clinical social worker hat on for this question. I think that officers are frequently the first people called when something goes wrong and because of that, they have direct insight into situations where enforcement tools don't solve the problem or where calls that repeat because underlying needs aren't being addressed or moments when a different type of responder might help more. And I think their perspective can help policy makers design more effective response systems. And I think when we say unintentionally pushed law enforcement into roles better suited for health or housing, what I'm hearing is that police are often the default responder for so many issues, whether it's a mental health crisis, a homeless related call, substance abuse, doing a welfare check on somebody in the community

58:20 and asking an officer where they feel they're acting as a defacto social worker or a clinician or a housing coordinator can really highlight where other services may be missing or where they're under resourced. So, whether we, you know, however we word this question, I still in its entirety think this question is really important. >> Well said.

58:53 All right, I will work on, I've been writing down all these comments, I'll work on wordsmithing this and send out to folks. Just doing a time check here, we're about at 10.30. I think we just have a couple other short items on the agenda. So, I don't think it's bad to take a little bit more time on this, but just thinking through as we look at these last few questions, what I would propose as a path forward is that we work through these last few questions, make sure that folks feel good about the wording or are able to give some input, I will come back right after this and kind of edit the question list and resend that out to folks and I think in terms of prioritization, I'll send these out maybe as an Excel spreadsheet and folks can rank them and if folks would commit to maybe this week, if I get that sent out today to ranking those, I will take everyone's input and then we'll have a generated

59:51 question list in order of priority just to kind of save us some time if that sounds okay as a path forward for folks. >> Sounds reasonable to me. >> Wonderful. Okay. So, then looking at question eight on Officer Chaver's update here, this is also, I think, question six on your original packet. Where do you see the best opportunities for collaboration between law enforcement and policy makers to make positive changes in our current systems? >> Maybe my earlier comment would be appropriate tagging on to this one which is, and I don't know how to word it,

1:00:48 but basically something to the degree of what, I'm not sure how to word this, but basically what is missing, like completely missing, not just in under capacity, but what is missing? It seems like it would actually fit well with this question. >> Now, Chair, let me throw this out here too. If you're looking at 10 on the screen or eight on the original list, that question is what changes in policy funding or coordination would most reduce repeat calls for service involving those in crisis and/or encampments? Does that get at what you're wanting or do you think we just want to add something to this question that asks about those gaps? >> I don't know.

1:01:46 >> I see Katie's hand up. Katie, did you have a comment? >> Not yet. I think I didn't ever raise, or excuse me, I never put my hand down. >> I see two different things. One is opportunities for collaboration is one thing and then gaps is another thing. So I'm fine with eight if we want to add opportunities for collaboration or gaps, I can-- >> This is Jamie. I like, I feel like number seven on the original is easier to understand or read, but I can also imagine without actually having talked to Tyler about this, I can also imagine that his intent with number eight was

1:02:43 that just like with anyone else, people want to be a part of, they want to collaborate on solutions versus just being handed down mandates. You know, does that make sense? So I almost feel like just the combination of kind of a simpler number eight, but just including that collaboration piece. I would also welcome input from the sergeant next to me. [ Laughter ] >> And I'm a little late to the game, I apologize. Not knowing who's going to be on the panel, I do think it would be valuable to get different perspectives from, you know, somebody on the HART team versus a deputy on patrol versus somebody in administration and I think each of them would have a different answer

1:03:43 to each one of those questions. So. >> I know from Vancouver, I think somebody from the chief's office as well as HART team and I think that's the invite that's going out to every jurisdiction is somebody from leadership, somebody from boots on the ground, is that right? >> We've been asking folks to identify who they think are the best folks to respond. I know different departments sometimes have a dedicated person and sometimes, again, you've got somebody in leadership or maybe somebody who is doing more of the day-to-day kind of direct interaction work and wanted to make sure that we get a balance of perspectives across the panel, but I think from any individual jurisdiction, we're trying to give them the ability to identify who they think is the best person. >> Yeah, so with that in mind, I think the 2 questions are asking 2 different things and as long as you're getting the perspective from the different groups, I think they're both valuable.

1:04:40 I think one is a higher level, what can we do on a higher level and then the other one is talking about just from boots on the ground perspective, what are you seeing without understanding the financing and all the work that's been done just as somebody who responds to a 911 call, what are you seeing and what areas do you think we can improve, so. >> All right, so we'll wordsmith that with those comments in mind. So then going to number 9 on Officer Chaver's list, number 7 on the list in your packet, understanding law enforcement recognizes various jurisdictions between the cities, the county, etcetera, where different policies, where differing policies, approaches and ordinances may be in place, are there changes which would support better regional collaboration

1:05:38 around homelessness response?

1:05:52 >> I like that one. >> Hey Jordan, I have a question, Dave Shook Jail Services. So whether in this one or the number 8, collaboration and communication are definitely 2 different topics. When I was working the road, communication on the resources available for first responders was something I felt like we didn't get a good messaging about, whether it's hotels, vouchers, whatever. Is there a place in either of these questions to add that communication component? >> Yes, I think we could either, so I think we have a couple options. We could either add in, you know, would support better regional collaboration and communication around homelessness response or I think if we look at the next question on the list, which asks like what changes

1:06:49 in policy funding or coordination would most reduce repeat calls, although I guess that doesn't quite get to the collaboration question, but I think we could fit communication in there as well, but I think there's an opportunity, if the question we want to ask is not just around regional collaboration, but like communicating across jurisdictions, I think we could certainly add that in there. I don't know if folks have thoughts. >> This is Diana, I like your suggestion, Jordan. I think that including communication around collaboration on number nine is good and thank you for bringing that up because they are two different things. >> Right. >> All right, and so then number ten on this list, number eight on the original list, what changes in policy funding or coordination would most reduce

1:07:48 repeat calls for service involving those in crisis and/or encampments? And then the final question on the list, 11 or 9 on the original, is there anything else you want policymakers to understand from your perspective as they work to end homelessness in Clark County? [ Silence ] >> Chair. >> Marilyn from CAMIS. I think question ten is very important, loaded. I would be very impressed if our law enforcement people could speak to changes in policy.

1:08:43 Or funding, I think of our law enforcement people as boots on the ground, people who may not have that level of knowledge but it would be great to know, you know, if they had some ideas about that. I really like question 11 because it's like any interview that you ask and so what else do you want us to know, right? So I do like 11. I like ten, I just worry that people might be caught flat-footed by that question. >> I feel like number ten is probably my favorite question because, you know, we get-- when we're very high level on these subjects, we very quickly get detached from what's happening on the ground in reality. And I think we need that communication, we need that understanding from the people that are a part of the system that are operating within it to help us identify where the problems are.

1:09:42 So I think ten and actually what I would add to it would be identifying missing services or resources, something to that nature, adding that to that. But I think the boots on the ground can do a lot in terms of getting us perspective of how the entirety of the system functions or doesn't function for that matter. >> Okay. >> So Marilyn again from Canvas, I would just add, I agree. I agree completely about that. And I like your proposal of what changes in policy funding or coordination or missing services or something like that, adding that in there. I didn't mean to demean the boots on the ground perspective at all. At all. I think that's a very important perspective. >> Thank you.

1:10:41 >> Ticed over Vancouver. We have too many questions. And I thought we talked about some of these points earlier. We were getting at some of these points that you're bringing up here. Personally, I would go towards the open-ended anything else you want us to know. Because I'm feeling like we're getting to policy, we're getting to what resources are needed, what -- so my coaching to Jordan would be those things that were just communicated, that we make sure we are hitting those things through the questions and not be redundant. But still leave the opportunity at the end for open-ended tell us what else.

1:11:40 So not to diminish what you said, Chair, just let's not be redundant given that we've already got way too many questions going on. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, everyone. That's the question list. That is great feedback. Like I said, I will take these edits. I will put them in an Excel spreadsheet with an ability for you to rank them, and I will send that out today. If folks can, as quickly as they are able, review, give me your top in order preferences. I'll say a top five, and we will sort those and rank them in priority list. And that will be kind of the order that we ask the questions in. And so we'll be able to get as much information as we can, and as we talked about a little bit before, you know,

1:12:38 I think this really is the start of more dialogue, and I think this is going to open up the conversation. And so while we may not have the chance to ask all these questions at the panel, I think if there are specific things that this group wants to follow up on, we'll be able to work on doing that. >> Great. Well, thank you for that discussion. I look forward to you working your magic there. >> Quick question. When is that going to be meeting? When is that law enforcement panel? >> It's our next meeting in April, which is the 14th. >> Okay. I just wanted to verify. Thank you. >> Okay. Let's go ahead and move forward then, Jordan, to state legislative update. >> All right. So just a few updates. As folks may be aware, the short session with the state legislature in Olympia ends on Thursday, so we are getting very close to the end of the legislative session, and I have been tracking bills

1:13:37 on behalf of the council, and they're just a couple of items I wanted to bring forward to the group I thought might be of interest to you all. So first update is on the millionaire's tax. This is Senate Bill 6346. It imposes a 9.9% income tax on incomes over $1 million in the state of Washington. It looked like it was going to pass and was in one form, and then it looked like it was on life support for a while. Now it's looking like it probably will pass again with the governor's support, but some of the things that the bill would do is with some of the revenue that it would raise that is relevant for ECHO is that it would increase funding for the working family's tax credit. It would provide free breakfast and lunch in schools, and for local governments, one of the things that folks should be mindful of is that the bill is paired

1:14:34 with a number of sales tax exemptions for, like, hygiene products, some other products that people buy on a regular basis, diapers, things like that, which I think, you know, in a vacuum is a policy that many folks can support, but one of the impacts of that is that it cuts local revenue. So, right, the state cuts sales taxes. They don't just cut the state portion of the sales tax. They cut local sales taxes as well, and so that just means that that's going to cause revenue gaps for our local governments as well, and so I think just that the legislature has stated that their intention is to backfill the cuts to local governments that will come from this, but there is not currently money allocated to do so, so I think that's just something, as we're looking at the impacts of this bill, it's changing a lot. We're not necessarily going to know maybe all the details until after it passes,

1:15:32 and so that's just something we should probably be mindful of as we look at that bill moving forward. Another item is that it appears that document recording fee backfill, so as folks will recall, we fund many of our homeless programs in the crisis response system through document recording fees, so this is a fee on real estate transactions. There have been fewer real estate transactions post-pandemic, and so the state has backfilled those revenues to keep our funding closer to whole. That document recording fee backfill appears to be intact through the second year of the biennium, so that's an additional $58.8 million statewide. That looks like it's still in the budget. That was in the budget that was passed last year as well, looks like it's still there. House Bill 2338, 2338, that allows for community-scaled weatherization projects.

1:16:29 This is something that county council has been supportive of, but weatherization projects to improve low-income folks whose homes may not be weatherized, that bill would allow for community-scaled projects, so not just individual homeowners updating their homes and weatherizing them, but allowing for grants for some larger-scale projects as well. There also appears to be funding for the state's Home Energy Assistance Program. It looks like the state is planning to use Climate Commitment Act dollars, so the Climate Commitment Act passed a few years ago, puts a tax on carbon and polluters, and that provides funding for energy bill assistance for low-income folks, so to the extent that we have heard often, you know, if you've got a bill or two that maybe are close on the edge of homelessness, this is a program that can help people pay their energy bills.

1:17:24 Senate Bill 6027 passed both chambers and is awaiting the governor's signature, and what that bill does is it expands flexibility for funding streams, backfilling and supporting programs that currently use continuum-of-care funding, so we know that the federal government is looking at cutting continuum-of-care funding, reallocating that, and so 6027 allows local governments to use affordable housing sales tax revenue for affordable and supporting housing operations and maintenance, so to the extent, you know, I know the county just passed that sales tax in January and are looking at how we can use that to support affordable housing in the county, so that's another use. I know the city of Vancouver already has that. The bill also expands uses in the state's affordable housing

1:18:22 for all account, which basically translates into more flexibility in how local governments can use housing trust fund dollars, and then the other thing that the bill does is it prioritizes continuity and stability of existing projects, so there is a desire to, as cuts are coming at the federal level, to prioritize housing that we already have, you know, over and above adding new housing, if that's not available. The final thing that I would like to say about the budgets is both the House and Senate budgets, the drafts that they have put out and likely will go into the final. There is over $600 million in the housing trust fund, and the House is actually up to $690 million, and so it's about a $200 million increase over last year's biennial budget for the housing trust fund, so that is some more resources available to local governments

1:19:21 for affordable housing supportive services. Those are things like the CHIPS program and some other supportive services, so we will see what the final budget looks like. I think it's supposed to get released tomorrow. Technically, they need like 48 hours to get all the paperwork through, so typically you're trying to see the budget drafts at least a couple days before the end of session, and we'll give you another update once we have all those final information about what bills have passed, but just wanted to flag those for folks, and if anyone else has any other bills they've been tracking that they think the group should know about, I think there's an opportunity for folks to share that now as well. >> Thank you for all that, and thank you for -- it's amazing how well you track all of that stuff going through the state legislature. Is there any questions at all for Jordan, or any thoughts on that?

1:20:21 All right, let's go ahead and move forward then. The takeaways, recommendations, next steps, closing, and anything for the good of the order. Diana? >> Real quickly, Michael, the CAB materials were emailed out on February 17th. >> Thank you. And we're still sending like the link to the presentations to Jordan, which if you didn't already have it, like we can send it out again if necessary. >> I just wanted to note that after today's discussion as far as next items that we could look at, thinking ahead in the year, community court, bringing that so that there's a better understanding on that, and it's just a nice follow-up to this continued conversation with law enforcement. And then just for us to go back and look at the priority list

1:21:17 that this group had identified as we continue to move forward in the year and thinking longer term. And I'd also like to see a timeline for when we want to have that RFP analysis out. So if you want to go back with Vanessa and get an idea of when we should get that out, a good timeline so that we could prepare ourselves to get a committee set up to review that and be a little better prepared as opposed to trying to do that here at this meeting. >> Thank you for those comments. We have been -- there's been a lot of moving parts that we've been working on recently, and we've really been devoted to those items, especially the panel coming up next month. So I think that our main meeting would be a good time to kind of bring some of those items back that are sitting in the parking lot and do some looking at planning for the next several months at least, so thank you

1:22:17 for bringing that up. Anything else for the good of the order? Michelle? >> Yes. I just wanted to let everybody know that I did receive some information. So the press release has not gone out for the accepting of letters of interest and applications or what have you for the community member. The amended contract to pay for the honorarium is going before the county council on the 17th, so next Tuesday. So once we have that information on how that is, then we'll be able to conduct a press release, bring it to you so that you can approve it and then go ahead and get it out. And then the last thing was that there were a total of seven interested individuals from JEG and that, again, was from 2021. So we did have a total of seven.

1:23:15 I'm happy to reach out to them, but once we have all the information on what the finalization from the county council is. So that's your update. And if you have questions. >> Thank you for that. >> Thank you. I am really concerned about waiting for this group to approve a press release. Because next month is the law enforcement council or the law enforcement panel. I don't want to wait until May. So. >> I believe that, this adjourned Bogey, I believe you all did approve the draft press release. So I think once, I'll go back and double check the minutes, but my recollection is that this group did approve the previous press release. >> Even if we didn't, please, I vote to pre-approve.

1:24:12 >> Agreed. >> Thank you, Michael Torres, Clark County Community Services. I wanted to let everyone know that House Bill 2060 document recording fee, that is the smaller document recording fee. That's about one-fifth of total document recording fees collected. It's the document recording fee that's governed by interlocal agreement with the cities. It is time to renew that interlocal agreement with all the cities. So in the next two weeks, we will be sending the draft interlocal out to all the cities to review. And it's going to, the draft is basically going to reflect what is the current interlocal agreement, which is designed to just give as much flexibility in the use of, the allowable uses of funds as possible.

1:25:09 And, you know, which is currently almost entirely being used on shelters, entirely being used on shelter services. So you're going to be receiving that in the next two weeks. And, you know, once we get feedback, we will be finalizing it and sending those out for signature. But just want to get ahead. >> How often does that come up for renew? >> It will depend on the group, ultimately. So I would recommend no less than five years just because interlocals are burdensome. And it's not a whole lot of funding. But, you know, I think that will be part of the feedback. I think when we send it out, it will be at least a five-year date in the future. >> Okay. Great. Thank you for that. >> Michael, if -- to help with confusion in the future, if -- I know that we struggled with getting these numbers.

1:26:08 But if estimates about what each jurisdiction is contributing to that could go out in that, that would help people understand scale. Because I think that's -- we struggled with thinking there was a lot more money there than there actually is. And so if you could help provide that. It doesn't have to be exact. But general ranges for each jurisdiction, I think would help the jurisdictions understand. Thank you. >> We'll do our best. I don't -- it's been a while since we had that conversation. I -- from what I recall, breaking it down by jurisdiction in terms of how it's collected is not as easy as one would think. But we'll do our best to provide some kind of estimate

1:27:07 when we send out the draft. >> What I would suggest is just using the information that we had from the last time and not recreating it and just acknowledging it's probably changed to some degree but not, you know, by a big factor. But I think the point is well taken. This is a great opportunity to kind of enter into the documentation so that we don't keep having this conversation continually coming up. So yeah, a list of like how approximately dollar amount that each jurisdiction is contributing and then where those funds are going towards. >> And then when people have questions, we can just say look at the ILA. >> Absolutely. And the questions are always legitimate. These are public funds and this is a public process. So we're, you know, we're happy to, you know, receive the questions. >> Is that reasonable, Ty? Do you think just using the numbers

1:28:06 that we went through last year? >> Yeah. I think that's totally reasonable. Just -- because the reality is that discussion we had a couple years ago, there are a lot of new policymakers. There's new city managers and new city administrators. So being able to just some rough guesstimate that allows people to feel more comfortable with the agreement that they're signing. >> Great. Thank you. Any last thoughts before we adjourn? Okay. We will see you in April. Excited to have that panel next month. Take care, everybody. >> Perfect timing.

1:29:17 [ Music ]