New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
City Council Priority Issues Oct-Dec 2005
COE
>
PW
>
Admin
>
Execs
>
Executive non-confidential
>
Historical
>
City Council Priority Issues Oct-Dec 2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2009 10:58:53 AM
Creation date
6/1/2009 12:24:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Exec
PW_Division_Exec
Administration
PWA_Project_Area
Miscellaneous
PW_Subject
City Council
Document_Date
12/30/2005
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• Prioritize the issues of most critical need and/or areas where the City and the "collaborative <br />base" of partners can deliver the most effective assistance, taking into account discretionary <br />funding and the potential to redeploy resources to higher priority areas. <br />• Present the highest priority items to the Mayor and City Council, and request they direct the <br />City Manager on which options should be implemented. <br />• Assign appropriate City staff and other applicable resources to short- and long-term options <br />approved by the Mayor and City Council.' <br />PROGRESS SINCE LAST REPORT <br />The team's focus over the last quarter has been to meet with as many of the stakeholder groups as <br />possible to determine the gaps in service and other important issues. These gatherings included <br />meetings with homeless families, youth and singles. <br />The revised plan, which included stakeholder input, was adopted on November 30, 2005. <br />CHALLENGES <br />The main challenge during this period was coordinating all of the meetings with stakeholders, <br />commissions and other interested parties. Staff from the Lane County Human Services <br />Commission was instrumental in the progress made thus far by the staff team. <br />INTERMEDIATE MEASURES <br />• Number of meetings with homeless community members, service providers, homeless <br />advocates, City and County commissions and other key stakeholders to determine and <br />prioritize gaps and needs <br />• Amount of City budget authority allocated to programs that directly help the homeless <br />• Number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless <br />community members <br />FINAL OUTCOME MEASURES <br />Community Indicators -Measures that reflect that this is a complex issue and needs the support of many <br />organisations and individuals besides the City: <br />• Number of beds available to homeless community members, by type of person/group <br />served (youth/singles/family) <br />City Measures -Measures that are mainly or wholly controlled by City staff or City elected o~cials. <br />• Amount of City budget authority allocated to programs that directly help the homeless <br />• Number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless <br />community members <br />-16- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.