Laserfiche WebLink
Tier 1 <br />Current City-Assisted <br />Service <br /> Permanent Prevention and response Current federal pass- <br />Affordable through and local <br />Housing assistance is over $1 <br />million; significantly <br />more is needed. <br /> Human Services Broad range of social $1.4 million now. <br />Commission services Could be enhanced by <br />Funding any amount <br /> Homeless Response to complaints; $81,500 <br />Camping management of camp <br />Facilitation spaces <br />Contract <br /> Looking Glass Emergency youth shelter $36,000 <br />Station 7 <br /> Buckley House Detox treatment $28,300 <br /> White Bird – Emergency response $244,000 (includes a <br />CAHOOTS one-time increase this <br />year) <br /> <br />Tier 4: Identify a stable, long-term funding source. (Homelessness Action Planning Team <br />Recommendation) <br /> <br />Homelessness has emerged over the last 25 years in America primarily due to funding reductions <br />in housing, and in a variety of social and mental health services. Resolving the problem will <br />require increased funding. Nationally, many communities have identified a significant stable <br />funding source to support affordable housing and to address homelessness. The most effective <br />option with the greatest potential for measurable long-term results is to identify funding, along <br />with policy directives, and to use systems that are currently in place for allocations. The report of <br />the 1988 Lane County Task Force on Homelessness and Affordable Housing, a visionary <br />document that remains the blueprint for local efforts, calls for a priority on developing affordable <br />housing rather than increasing emergency shelter services. Numerous national studies have since <br />supported its conclusions. <br /> <br />Pro: Supports a comprehensive, long-term approach, which will probably deliver the most <br />effective response over time, since the local homeless population is documented to be almost <br />entirely from this area. Will slow the increase of homelessness and work towards its elimination. <br /> <br />Con: Is expensive and identifying secure funding sources is difficult, and may require a new tax <br />or fee. This competes with other community priorities and, if enacted by council, may be subject <br />to a public vote through referendum. <br /> <br />Cost: Might require costs associated with collecting funds and administering expenditures. <br />These administrative costs would be likely be covered by the new revenue stream. <br />3 <br /> <br />